Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Objective 1

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on additionality and match funding in connection with objective 1 European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [103487]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including objective 1. The provision of match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant. That ensures local ownership and commitment to the projects. Additionality of European structural funds support is measured at the level of the member state, as set out in the structural funds regulations.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he, however, take this opportunity to assure all potential investors in objective 1 schemes in Wales whose projects are on hold because of the Government's lack of commitment to provide full match funding, in order that the projects can progress and the best be made of the funding?

Mr. Murphy: I have made the Government's position very clear in the House and to the hon. Gentleman on numerous occasions: the spending review that has begun will address the issue between now and July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear his commitment to the success of the scheme. I remind the House that it was my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who obtained objective 1 status for Wales in the first place. Anyone would think that the Opposition parties had gone to Berlin themselves and won the deal. They did not do that. The Conservatives never tried for objective 1 status

and the nationalists never thought that we would do it. Now, between them, they are using the success of our negotiations cynically to bring down the Assembly and wreck the devolution settlement.

Sir Raymond Powell: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said to Opposition Members. Everything that we are trying to achieve on objective 1 is in support of what we promised in the general election and in the Welsh Assembly elections. I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to a development at the Bridgend paper mills in Llangynwyd. It deserves consideration, especially because of the high unemployment rate in my constituency. I am sure that he will look favourably at the application.

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware that these matters are not for the United Kingdom Government but for the National Assembly, but I am aware of the problems to which he refers. I am a valley Member myself, and I understand the importance of the factory to his constituency. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter when next I have discussions with the First Secretary.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State admit that, in the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), it is as plain as a pikestaff that there will be no additional funding from the Treasury to bring down objective 1 funding for Wales? Does not that mean that the Assembly's health and education budgets will be raided to provide the matching funds? How does he intend to overcome that problem?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman must know something that I do not. I spend a great deal of my time—I shall do so later today and during the rest of the week—discussing with my Cabinet colleagues and other Ministers precisely the nature of the spending review and how much money will be involved for objective 1. We have to go through that spending process, as he knows. That is the way of government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our general commitment, which I repeat, but it will take between now and July for us to sort out the detail of the negotiations.
As I said, it was a Labour Government who obtained the funds for Wales and it is a great disservice to the people of Wales for Opposition Members to do nothing but criticise and whinge when they have not lifted a finger to secure those funds.

Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency would be happy to accept objective 1 or objective 2 status, surrounded as we are by objective 1 both to the west and to the English east. When my right hon. Friend sees the First Secretary or travels to Brussels, will he say that we would expect at the very least a £25 million grant for the A3XX project, because if we do not get that, we in north-east Wales will not look kindly on the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff?

Mr. Murphy: I am aware that my right hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time and energy in the past month putting the case for that project very forcefully and robustly. He knows that because I have been with him in


his constituency to look at the project. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter once again when I see the First Secretary next week.

Mr. Robert Walter: I am not whingeing, as the Secretary of State suggested, but the House and the people of Wales need some clear answers on this subject. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is no money in his allocation to provide any match funding for 2000–01 or 2001–02 and that, if any money were forthcoming, it would have to fall within the departmental expenditure limit? I remind him of his answer to me on 10 November 1999, Official Report column 621W, when he said that the departmental expenditure limit was not being changed as a result of the negotiation of objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. That means that any allocations would have to be taken from education, health or roads in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no confidence in the Labour Administration. The people of Wales do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will not let Wales down.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his figures in that the allocations for the National Assembly for Wales and for my office are different. Obviously, it is for the Assembly to determine what happens in the first year of objective 1 funding. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary that such moneys are there for the first year of that funding. As to after that, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government normally fund all their projects through the spending review. The Chief Secretary has told me and other colleagues that the Treasury accepts the fact that objective 1 funding and the relationship between the block grant is different from previous years and that that will be dealt with in the forthcoming spending review.

Cardiff International Airport

Mr. John Smith: When he next plans to meet the First Secretary to discuss the role of Cardiff international airport in the future economic development of the region. [103488]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact on the future economic development of Wales. This includes the non-devolved subject of airports—a matter reserved to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The First Secretary has not requested a meeting specifically to discuss Cardiff international airport, but access, and transport generally, are issues considered in the Assembly's economic development plans.

Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that the success and regeneration of the Welsh economy with objective 1 support will depend on access to an international airport providing regular, scheduled business flights. He may not be aware that Cardiff international airport may not develop to its full potential and provide such a service to business if it does not get a dual highway to link it to the motorway network. When he next meets the First Secretary, will he bring that

urgent matter to his attention? If he does so, he will have the backing of nearly the entire south Wales business community.

Mr. Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that issue. As the local Member of Parliament, he is very much aware of the significance of Cardiff airport to the Welsh economy. It is one of the United Kingdom's fastest growing airports and has the longest runway west of Heathrow and south of Manchester. On the matter that he raised, I am pleased to tell the House that the Assembly and the Vale of Glamorgan local authority are considering a link between Culverhouse Cross and the airport and have already spent about £300,000 on the design and preparation work for such a road.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the economic regeneration of the catchment area that is served by the airport, and indeed the well-being of the airport itself, will depend on sorting out the mess that has arisen between the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission in Brussels about regional assistance. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we do not lose any companies in Wales—in that area or any other part of Wales—as a result of the fact that we are without the regional assistance that we should have had in place from 1 January? When does he expect that assistance to be in place?

Mr. Murphy: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House. We are aware that he is on the mend and I hope that he improves even more. Obviously, we are aware of the difficulties regarding the matter that he raises. It has been discussed in Brussels. In the meantime, I understand that the National Assembly for Wales has prepared provisional arrangements so that when companies apply for such grants they will be given conditional assistance. Obviously, I share his view that we need to sort the matter out as quickly as possible.

Mr. Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend is discussing airports, would he not forget the special contribution that is made by the smaller airports, such as Pembrey airport in my constituency—which will soon start regular flights to and from London—to the economic regeneration of Wales and, in my constituency, in south Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Assembly has embarked on a study of air services generally in Wales, and I am sure that that will include the airport at Pembrey. The study was commissioned by the former Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I hope that it will be published in March.

Transport

Mr. Donald Anderson: If he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [103489]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend has discussed the impact on transport in Wales with the First Secretary and with the Assembly Cabinet. Both myself and my right hon. Friend addressed a plenary Session of the Assembly in the context of the Government's legislative programme, and we listened to the Assembly's views on a range of issues, including the impact on transport. I also meet regularly with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government, Environment and Transport and have discussed the Transport Bill with him.

Mr. Anderson: Is not one of the major co-operative achievements on transport between the Labour Government and the Labour leadership in the Assembly the fact that we have half-price concessionary fares on the buses for our pensioners in Wales, and will shortly have free buses for pensioners, under the Assembly? By chance, does my hon. Friend have to hand the number of pensioners in Swansea and Ceredigion who will benefit?

Mr. Hanson: I can confirm that British Government resources used by the Assembly will ensure that, in Wales from April 2002, all pensioners will receive free bus transport. By chance, I happen to have the numbers who will benefit in all constituencies in Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned Swansea and Ceredigion in particular, and I can tell him that more than 36,000 pensioners in Swansea city and 14,500 in Ceredigion will receive free bus transport. I hope that they will recognise that shortly in Swansea, Ceredigion and elsewhere in Wales.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is not it time that we had a common-sense approach for the car user in Wales, including Ceredigion? In 1997, petrol prices were about 59p a litre. Now, they are about 75p a litre. Thanks to the Government, taxes on the car user have gone up by 13p a litre. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the mugging of the rural motorist, which hits the pensioner, the student and the farmer alike? When will the Government recognise that the car in rural areas is a necessity, not a luxury? When will the Government stop caning the countryside?

Mr. Hanson: You will tell me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I do believe that it was the Conservative party who introduced the fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has agreed to review and will decide upon, year on year, in each Budget. In Wales, £179 million is being spent on transport infrastructure—far more than was spent by the Conservative Government. We value the motorist, and we value the need for rural areas to have strong motoring economies. However, at the end of the day, we must face transport problems generally for rural and city users. The hon. Gentleman should not come to this House today to talk about the fuel escalator when the Conservative Government introduced it.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency suffers from probably the worst road congestion in Wales? The railways should alleviate that, but the valleys line suffers from under-capacity because there is insufficient incentive to put down track to carry passengers. Cardiff Central railway station suffers from under-capacity, and is unable to meet

the demands from the nearby Millennium stadium when 60,000 people flow out and congest its platforms. What plans do the Government have to address that under-capacity problem on our railways?

Mr. Hanson: I fully concur with the views of my hon. Friend. The Transport Bill will introduce a Strategic Rail Authority, and Wales will have a representative on that authority who will be able to argue strongly for the Welsh perspective in the interests of improving the infrastructure of the rail system in Wales. My hon. Friend has mentioned issues that are important to the valleys and to Cardiff, and I hope that we as the British Government will work in partnership with the Assembly to ensure that we improve rail transport for the needs of both communities.

Special Advisers

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will list the responsibilities of the special advisers to the Wales Office. [103490]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Wales Office has two special advisers, Professor Hywel Francis and Mr. Adrian McMenamin, both of whom assist me across the whole range of my responsibilities. Professor Francis is primarily based in Cardiff and mainly liaises with the National Assembly, and Mr. McMenamin is primarily based in London and liaises with other UK Government Departments.

Dr. Lewis: Given that the two special advisers seem rather underwhelmed with work at the moment, may I make a helpful suggestion? Does the Secretary of State realise of his two predecessors—both of whom remain Members of Parliament—that as of the new year, out of 73 Divisions of the House, one had voted only once and the other had not voted at all? As a gesture of kindness, could not he offer them the services of his special advisers to dream up some excuses for that appalling voting record?

Mr. Murphy: I am not sure how that question relates to the role of special advisers in the Wales Office. My advisers have plenty of work to do, if only to address all the issues that hon. Members have raised today.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his special advisers the lack of public accountability of quangos in Wales such as the Arts Council of Wales and Forest Enterprise Wales? Does he agree that the decision by Forest Enterprise Wales not to sell Chepstow Park wood will be greatly welcomed in my constituency, and that the decision by the Arts Council of Wales to suspend its flawed drama strategy will be equally welcomed?

Mr. Murphy: I am not sure whether my two special advisers can take credit for both those decisions, but I, too, welcome them. I said to him at the previous Question Time that there would be a satisfactory outcome as far as the Forestry Commission was concerned, and that has been the case. I am also delighted that the Gwent and other theatre companies have been saved.

Mr. Nigel Evans: What are the special advisers doing, because post offices in Wales are under


threat; farmers in Wales face the worst crisis in 60 years and some of them are surviving on incomes of only £2,000 a year; when objective 1 match funding is uncertain and even a former Labour Secretary of State for Wales has criticised its handling; and when intensive care patients are being treated in recovery rooms? Is not it time that the Secretary of State retired his special advisers and invested the money saved in services that would benefit all the people of Wales?

Mr. Murphy: Again, the hon. Gentleman gives my advisers more powers than they have and certainly more money than they are paid would be needed to solve the problems to which he refers. On one specific issue he mentioned, my predecessor is fully aware that the negotiation to obtain objective 1 moneys is a process, not an event.

Aerospace Projects

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What discussions he has had about the provision of financial assistance for the A400M and A3XX projects. [103491]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues that are clearly matters of great economic importance to the UK as a whole, and to Wales in particular. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed those issues with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Mr. David Roe Beddoe. He also visited the British Aerospace site at Broughton in September and received a deputation from the company to discuss the Airbus project, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside.

Mr. Hoyle: Obviously, I share the concerns about the future of the aerospace industry. Many jobs in north Wales and Lancashire are dependent on the next two projects—the A3XX and the A400M. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the case for Wales and Lancashire is put strongly, and will he recognise that the C 17s do not bring any jobs to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes some relevant points, and I recognise the importance of financial support for the A400M and the A3XX projects. Some 4,000 jobs at the Broughton site in north Wales depend on the projects, and there is the potential there for 1,400 additional new jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in contact with the Welsh Assembly and the Department of Trade and Industry on these important matters, and we shall certainly battle in Government on behalf of Wales' interests.

Law and Order

Mr. Simon Hughes: What reports he has commissioned for 2000 on law and order issues in Wales. [103492]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have not commissioned any such reports. Law and order in England and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I discuss these issues with other Ministers on a regular basis.

Mr. Hughes: Will Ministers in the Wales Office talk to their Home Office colleagues about two important law and order matters in Wales? The crime figures published yesterday for north and south Wales and for Dyfed-Powys were very good, although those for Gwent were less good. The two police forces in England and Wales with the highest rates of violent crimes as a proportion of all crimes are Dyfed-Powys and Gwent. In both of them, more than one crime in five is a violent crime—way above anywhere else in England and Wales.
Will the Minister work urgently for something to be done to discern the cause of so much violent crime in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent? Is it not possible that alcohol may contribute to the problem? If so, should not those matters be tackled as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Hanson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, although yesterday's figures show that overall crime rates fell in three out of the four Welsh police authorities, which is good news for Wales. Clear-up rates in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent are relatively high, compared with other police authorities. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised some serious issues, and I assure him that the Government are committed to tackling violent crime. I shall discuss the matter with colleagues when the opportunity arises.

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend knows that it is three years since the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in north Wales was commissioned. There is considerable concern at the long delay in publication of the report, especially among my constituents, some of whom were directly involved in that child abuse. They are now adults and they want to know when the report will be published. Will my hon. Friend give some indication of when that will happen?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue in which I take great interest, both as a Member of Parliament representing a north Wales constituency, and as a Wales Office Minister. The report has been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is currently being prepared for publication, and the summary of the report is being translated into Welsh. I anticipate that we will be able to publish the report as soon as that work is complete, and I look forward to that happening soon.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Who is to blame for the rising crime in Wales—the Labour Government in London, or the Labour regime in Cardiff?

Mr. Hanson: The figures published yesterday showed that crime fell in three of the four police authorities in Wales. The Government have put extra resources into those authorities, with the result that Wales now has more police officers in post and on the beat than when the previous Conservative Government left office. The record


of this Government is that there are more police officers, and that crime has fallen in three out of the four authorities in Wales.

Block Grant

Mr. Ian Bruce: What arrangement has been put in place for the regular review of the block grant for the Welsh Executive. [103493]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Welsh block is determined within the framework of public expenditure control in the United Kingdom, and is normally assessed during the regular reviews of the Government's spending plans. The next spending review is taking place this year and continues the three-year planning cycle established in the comprehensive spending review.
These arrangements are detailed in the document "A Statement of Funding Policy", published by the Treasury on 31 March 1999.

Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to boast that Wales already gets more than its fair share of central Government expenditure, and that it has done very well out of regional assistance. Does he agree that to give extra money to the Welsh Assembly for match funding would be wholly unfair to the UK taxpayer?

Mr. Murphy: First, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales gets only its fair share of public expenditure. The system to which he refers has served Wales well for two decades. Any money going to Wales under objective 1 funding is a result of the fact that Wales qualifies, in terms of deprivation, for objective 1 status.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ql. [103517] Mr. David Crausby: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that nurses, midwives and national health service staff thoroughly deserve their pay rise for the way in which they have kept the NHS going, not only in the face of the flu epidemic, but in the face of a generation of Tory neglect? On future health funding, can my right hon. Friend confirm that private medical insurance for a pensioner couple costs up to £87 a week? Does that not show that Tory policy on privatisation is totally out of touch with the needs of the majority of the British people?

The Prime Minister: The additional pay award will help recruit and retain nurses in the health service. Indeed,

there has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number of nurses starting training as a result of the increase last year. There is a very clear choice. Conservative policy is to ensure that there is tax relief for private medical insurance. The cost of providing such tax relief for those who already have private medical insurance would be enough to wipe out the entire nurses' pay award for this year, plus cancelling every refurbishment of every accident and emergency department in this country. The Conservatives are doing that because of their so-called tax guarantee. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said this of it:
to say that you are going to reduce the proportion of taxes to GDP in all circumstances is mad … You simply don't unless you make … swingeing cuts in the health service".
That is the Conservative policy.

Mr. William Hague: With crime rising for the first time in six years—violent crime is up 6 per cent., robbery by 19 per cent., and total crime by more than 110,000 offences—has not the Prime Minister's failure to be tough on crime now become one of the causes of crime? Is it not the case that thousands of victims of crime have discovered that the right hon. Gentleman's pledge to be tough on crime was empty, worthless and fraudulent?

The Prime Minister: It did not take the right hon. Gentleman long to move off the subject of the health service.
Since the election, recorded crime has fallen by 7 per cent. It is correct, particularly in respect of the rise in the West Midlands and Metropolitan police force figures, that the recent figures show a 2 per cent. increase. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the Government of whom he was a Member, crime doubled.

Mr. Hague: When the right hon. Gentleman took office, crime had fallen—was falling—and the number of police officers was up by 16,000. Now police numbers have fallen by more than 1,000 under the Home Secretary, stop-and-search powers have not been used, honesty in sentencing has been dropped, police morale has plummeted and crime is rising after six years of falling. Who does the right hon. Gentleman think is responsible for the rise in crime, the fall in police numbers and low police morale in the past year?

The Prime Minister: Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. Crime did not fall under the Conservatives—it doubled. As a matter of fact, domestic burglaries have fallen by 20 per cent. and the theft of vehicles has fallen by 17 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are not introducing any tougher measures on crime. It is this Government who have introduced tougher measures for drug dealers; it is this Government who are halving the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court; and it is this Government who have introduced the policy of "three strikes and you're out" for burglary.

Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said that the Home Secretary
has presided over the largest fall in police numbers for years, a huge rise in crime and the most demoralised force".


The police know who to blame, and they know that the Prime Minister's pledge to be tough on crime has turned out to be a worthless aspiration.
As the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about pledges, will he tell us whether, when he said that he would increase health spending by 5 per cent. in real terms for five years, that was an absolute pledge or an aspiration?

The Prime Minister: Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman on crime. As I admitted a couple of Question Times ago, it is correct that police numbers continued to fall during our first two years, because we had inherited proposals that were made by the Conservatives. It is also correct that police numbers fell during the last few years of the Conservative Government by more than during our first two years. However, as a result of the fund introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we can now recruit more police officers and turn that around.
In relation to health, I stand entirely by what I said on "Breakfast with Frost".

Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is on the Front Bench next to the Prime Minister, said:
We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service."—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 744.]
That is a clear pledge.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesman said:
I can't say there will be a 5 per cent. increase this year, next year, and so on.
Those are utterly incompatible statements. Which one represents Government policy?

The Prime Minister: Let me read what I said on the Sunday programme:
If we run the economy properly over the next few years"—

Hon. Members: If!

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not deaf; I can hear what is being said.

The Prime Minister: I said:
we've got the first year … of substantial extra resources for the Health Service going in. Next year is the same, the year after that it's the same. If this July when we work out the next three year period after that three year period we can carry on getting real-term rises in the Health Service
we will come up to the European Union average.
I am entirely confident that we will get those 5 per cent. real-terms rises, because that is what we have achieved in this comprehensive spending review. The choice, therefore, is between the Labour Government, with our 5 per cent. real-terms rises, and a Conservative party, which, because of its tax guarantee, will not commit itself to spending any extra money on the health service. That, of course, is why the Conservatives go for the ludicrous notion that the problems in the health service can be solved by private medical insurance. When the right hon.

Gentleman gets to his feet, perhaps he will say whether it is indeed his policy to make that private medical insurance compulsory.

Mr. Hague: Let us have an answer from the Prime Minister, instead of that waffle about what he said. So far, we have had Frost on Sunday, panic on Monday, U-turn on Tuesday and waffle on Wednesday. If there was a pledge, why, yesterday, did the Prime Minister's spokesman say that he could not say that there would be a 5 per cent. increase year on year? That was the Prime Minister's spokesman—he is responsible for his spokesman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he isn't."] Oh, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for his spokesman. Not only does he deny responsibility for most things that are happening in the country, he now denies responsibility for his own press spokesman. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to repeat the statement made in the House last night by his junior Health Minister, who said:
We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service.

The Prime Minister: We are putting in a 5 per cent. real-terms growth. We are doing that. As I have said—not only on "Breakfast with Frost", but in the House in December—if we carry on running the economy properly, we can get these real terms rises in. [HON. MEMBERS: "If!"] If the Opposition think that the public will be disappointed, come July and the comprehensive spending review, they will find that they are the ones to be disappointed.
One of the reasons that we can bring in the real-terms rises is the way in which we have run the economy. There are 700,000 extra jobs. Social security spending on the costs of economic and social failure are falling. The choice is between our pledge to put in those extra resources, which we are doing, and the right hon. Gentleman's pledge that he will force people to go to private medical care for non-urgent operations.
In The Sunday Times this Sunday, the Conservative health spokesman said that
the Conservatives are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the NHS as the primary provider … 'Philosophically, we have moved on … Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high tech or expensive, like hip or knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations. We could then leave expensive treatments like cancer therapy to the NHS'".
If that happened, it would cost people over 60—many of whom are watching our proceedings—£60 to £80 a week to take out private medical insurance.
The reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot commit himself to match our resources in the health service is the tax guarantee. Perhaps he will finally explain what his policy is. I believe that this is a classic Hagueism—a misjudgment—because he gave the tax guarantee, and now he wants to give a spending guarantee, but the two do not add up.

Mr. Hague: One might think that the right hon. Gentleman had enough to do misrepresenting his own policies without misrepresenting ours. He knows that we are committed to improve and expand the national health service, but he also knows that every informed commentator and every other Government in Europe


believes in also improving health care from other sources—except him, with his blinkered ideology and his hostility to the private sector.
Today, we have seen that what the right hon. Gentleman said on Sunday was not an announcement of money to get the health service through the next five years but a piece of rhetoric to get him through the next five days. Fraud in this country has gone up by 29 per cent. but in his answers it has gone up 129 per cent.
We now have a country where crime is up, waiting lists are up, the NHS is in crisis and police numbers have fallen. Things are getting worse under Labour. Does not Britain deserve better than that?

The Prime Minister: Let us just deal with two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The first is that we are not prepared to look at other health care systems. Perhaps, in light of what has been in the media in the past few days, I should explain what happens, for example, under the German or the French system. German employers have to pay about 7 per cent. on top of each worker' s salary for health cover. Each worker has to take about £1,300 out of their pay to fund health insurance. In France, employers pay about 12 per cent. on top of each worker's gross wage. There is no way whatever that private medical insurance could solve the problem in the health service—none.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we are refusing to co-operate with the private sector. We shall of course co-operate where it is sensible. The private finance initiative in hospital buildings is co-operation with the private sector. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman today that half of NHS residential care—worth £730 million a year—is provided with the private sector. What is a con trick, though, is to tell people, when we need more nurses, doctors and facilities in the national health service, that forcing people who will not be able to afford it to go private will solve the problems of the national health service. It will not.
Finally, let me deal with how the right hon. Gentleman tries to get out of this, because he has his tax guarantee and his waiting list guarantee or his patient guarantee. A short time ago, he said in the House that he would fund his way out of this problem by making savings because—people will remember this—the costs of Government had risen by more than £1 billion since we came to power. We have had that figure checked. The right hon. Gentleman gets to it in this way.
First, the right hon. Gentleman deals in cash terms, not real terms. [Interruption.] Well, most people deal in real terms. Secondly, he takes as his starting point the end of the financial year 1997–98. Forgive me, but I thought that we were in power between 1997 and 1998. Taking the true figures, under the present Government the cost of central Government has actually fallen, not risen. So the way the right hon. Gentleman funds his pledges is rubbish. The truth is that, every time he turns his mind to policy, he has zero judgment. His policies are a joke and his party is divided; and that is one reason why this country will never trust the Tories with the health service again.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention to legislate to allow the promotion of homosexuality in our schools?

The Prime Minister: We believe, as we have said already, in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Some people may make political capital out of the issue, but I think that it is a sensible change and that it is the right change. I hope that we can get a more mature debate on it than we have had in certain quarters.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Assuming that the Prime Minister and the Government intend to go ahead with the proposed 1 per cent. reduction in income tax in April this year, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much that will cost the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: I also said in the interview that I gave on Sunday that the measure is in part compensation for the other tax changes that are being made. I believe that it is the right thing to do. Yes, we can always put up taxes and spend more, but, as a result of the changes that we have made, we will put this year into the national health service—

Mr. Kennedy: How much will it cost the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks, "How much?" We will put in a real-terms increase of 6 per cent. That works out both in real and in cash terms as several times the amount that he pledged at the last election.

Mr. Kennedy: I simply asked the Prime Minister how much it would cost, and answer came there none. It will cost more than £2 billion in April of this year. How many people out there in the country would rather see that money going on local hospitals, solving the problems of the health service, dealing with the operations that have been cancelled and so on and so forth? That is our priority; that is where the money should go. Why is it not the Prime Minister's priority? He should be putting the money towards health and not towards tax cuts.

The Prime Minister: First, let us deal with the Liberal Democrats' economic policy. As a matter of fact, on the Finance Bill, they have tabled deletions of rises and tax cuts that amount to more than 1p on the standard rate of income tax. If they are going to be consistent, there is no way that their sums add up at all.
Secondly, the important thing is that we are now able to get into the national health service really big real-terms rises. Why? Because we have run the economy effectively. I make no apologies whatever for allowing people to keep more of their income tax, but I tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I said to him last week, that what the Liberal Democrats cannot do is launch attacks on us because they say that we have raised the tax burden one week, then tell us the next week that we should put it up even further.

Caroline Flint: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the great steps forward that the Government have made in addressing the issues of child care and family friendly policies. Is he also aware that the


House is failing to meet the needs of its staff, who desperately need access to child care? As a parliamentarian, will he join me in supporting, in this new century, a chance to modernise this place to ensure that staff have access to child-care facilities for their children?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have more than a passing interest in child care. However, I say to my hon. Friend that this is a matter for the House authorities and it would be wrong for me to say more than that.

Referendums

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the equalisation of the total sums of public money to be spent on each side of the argument in future referendum campaigns.

The Prime Minister: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill received its Second Reading last week and will put into effect the Neill committee recommendations. It provides that up to £600,000 of public money should be made available by the Electoral Commission to designated umbrella organisations on each side of any referendum campaign.

Dr. Lewis: Given that the Bill allows equal sums of public money to be made available, why is the Prime Minister also putting into the Bill rules that mean that parties that favour the euro will be able to spend much more of the money that they raise than parties that are opposed to British entry into the euro? Could that be because at least 64 per cent. of the British people are opposed to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing the pound, and he knows that he can only hope to get it through by rigging the rules in that way?

The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. The two main parties will qualify for the same limit. In any event it could not be said that the no campaign was not well funded; indeed I should have thought that the opposite could be said. The rules are very fair for the no and yes campaigns because the sum of public money given to each side will be precisely the same, and the limit is the same for the main political parties. There is parity of treatment on both sides.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On the equalisation of moneys for the referendum, is the Prime Minister aware that Yorkshire property developer Mr. Paul Sykes told the Yorkshire Post last year that he is prepared to spend his £235 million fortune campaigning against Europe and the euro? He is already spending £20 million putting up very flattering pictures of me with my name on in my constituency, which my constituents think I have paid for myself, so I thank him for that.
Is the Prime Minister further aware that the Tories' new isolationist, anti-European business friends are already raising millions of pounds, in addition to the fact that newspapers owned by foreign proprietors campaign day and night against Europe? Will he ensure that when a referendum happens, there is equal play for those of us

who believe that Britain's future lies in Europe and that we should not join the Tory crusade to isolate Britain from Europe?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, which is why, as I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the no campaign is incredibly well funded, and it would be rather odd for anyone to claim that it would be discriminated against in funding.

Engagements

Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that every independent analyst and the House of Commons Library show that the so-called £21 billion health spending increase is, in real terms, £6.3 billion? If we used the Government's double and treble counting for the Prime Minister's age, on his next birthday he would turn 93 instead of 47, and on the following birthday he would enter the "Guinness Book of Records". In view of the crisis in the health service, perhaps a bit of straight talk and simple truth on those figures is warranted for the British people.

The Prime Minister: The £21 billion is £21 billion extra. I am sorry to have to point this out, but the one group of people who cannot complain about the amount of money going to the health service is the Conservative party. Let me educate the hon. Gentleman about his own policy. The Conservatives guarantee that they will cut taxes irrespective of the economic circumstances. There is no way that they can implement that policy while increasing spending on the health service. That is why they have never pledged to increase spending on the health service by the amount that we have pledged in this comprehensive spending review. That is no part of their guarantee. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra spending on the NHS, he should take a leaf out of others' book and start crossing the Floor.

Mr. Phil Hope: After the years of damaging Tory failure and isolation in Europe, does the Prime Minister welcome the publication today of Neil Kinnock's programme of radical action to overhaul the European Commission? If so, will he take a lead among European Union member states to make sure that we back tough action to clean up Europe and bring the Commission into the 21st century?

The Prime Minister: The programme will make substantial differences to the way in which the Commission is run and to its accountability, transparency and efficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry if Conservative Members do not support that, but it is after all what both Governments—this Government and the previous Government—were calling for over many years. Now that it has been delivered, the least that we can do is to acknowledge it.

Sir Robert Smith: The Prime Minister will know that the continuing crisis in agriculture is hitting all sectors. Specifically, does he want the pig industry—both farming and processing—to survive? To that end, will he back Agriculture Ministers' efforts to remove from the pig


industry the cost of the BSE crisis? The pig industry faces the cost of regulations relating to a crisis in whose creation it played no part.

The Prime Minister: I understand the difficulties of the pig industry. The problems, although very bad in some other countries, are especially bad in this country. We shall look and are looking for ways in which to reduce the cost and burden of regulation on the farming industry. However, some of the regulations have been introduced for animal welfare reasons, for example, the regulations on tethering animals, which were passed with cross-party consent in the previous Parliament, although they have been implemented universally only more recently. All those matters have to be seen against a background of real difficulties which are outside our control and have to do with loss of market share. We shall consider every means possible to help the pig industry, but most consumers would not thank us if we reduced animal welfare standards.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend share my distress at the activities of carpetbaggers who deprive building societies of funds that they might otherwise have used to provide resources for affordable housing? Does he agree that borrowing members of building societies are as important as saving members? Does he agree with the Select Committee that urged swift legislation on the matter?

The Prime Minister: The Government recognise the variety and choice that societies bring to the savings and loans market. On entering office, we acted promptly to increase the turnout threshold on conversion votes from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Only a society's board can propose conversion, which requires the support of 75 per cent. of saving members on a 50 per cent. turnout, and 50 per cent. of borrowing members who vote. Those are high thresholds, which have been reinforced by our action, but it is right that they are high. The current balance is correct.

Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister will know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is one of the few police forces to have had the honour of being awarded the title "Royal". What precedent is there for removing such an award, and is not its removal regarded as a sign of dishonour? Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it, but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.

The Prime Minister: There is no dishonour intended to the RUC: its officers have given their lives and shown outstanding bravery for many years. We are trying to ensure that Northern Ireland has a police service that is capable of attracting support from all sides of the community, so that it can police better. For that very reason, the Good Friday agreement provided for an independent commission, which has been headed by a former Northern Ireland Minister in the Conservative Government, to look closely into the issues. I do not want to pre-empt the statement that is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, except to say that our desire in making any changes is not to devalue in any shape or form the enormous contribution made by the RUC, but to ensure that we get a police service in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all communities and enjoy the confidence of people from all communities, because we believe that that is an important part of a better future in Northern Ireland.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft regulations on part-time workers published on Monday by the Department of Trade and Industry will be welcomed by the CBI, the TUC and part-time workers—in fact, everyone but the Conservatives, who do not appear to like the fact that the regulations emanate from Europe and that they give workers rights? Will he assure the House that he will consider carefully ways in which the rights to fair pay, holiday entitlement and training opportunities that are offered to part-time workers can be extended to casual workers?

The Prime Minister: We will certainly consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about casual workers. The purpose of the new regulations is to ensure that part-time workers get a proper deal. That is part of ensuring that we have a labour market in which there are certain basic standards in place. The minimum wage is one such standard. The fact that we are introducing proper rights for part-time workers and the fact that people will have for the first time the right to paid holiday entitlement are all basic, decent rights. They are all things that the Conservatives are committed to scrapping. That shows only how entirely out of touch they are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Patten Report

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's decisions on the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, known as the Patten report after its chairman, Chris Patten.
Of all the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland, policing is probably the most controversial. In the past 30 years, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has faced demands completely unlike those faced by any other force in the United Kingdom or, indeed, elsewhere in the developed world. I would like to place on record the Government's deep admiration for the courage, resilience and professionalism with which the RUC has met these challenges. The accounts that I have heard of personal tragedy, pain and loss in the RUC family are profoundly moving and humbling. Three hundred and two officers have been killed, and many thousands injured. We all owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude. The George Cross is a fitting acknowledgement of its sacrifice.
However, in rising to the challenge, the RUC has inevitably, if unfairly, become identified more with one side of the community than the other. It finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community and, with 88 per cent. of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent. Catholic, is not representative of all sides of the community. That is not a desirable state of affairs. The RUC itself is forward looking and accepts the need for change. It is eager to police a normal society in a normal, professional way, but it is held back by the burden of history.
The talks which led to the Good Friday agreement addressed but did not resolve these problems. Instead, Chris Patten and his colleagues were asked to design arrangements for
a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole.
The Patten commission rose to this challenge and I pay tribute to it. Its report covers, among other things, composition, training, culture, ethos and symbols. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) accepted the report in principle, and launched a period of consultation about the details. Since my own appointment, I have met all the interested parties and police groups—some more than once—and have listened very carefully indeed to what they had to say.
The decisions that I am announcing today will be reflected in legislation which we will bring forward later in the Session. In reaching them, I have been driven by, and have tried to keep in balance, three distinct but interdependent considerations: representativeness, effectiveness, and respect for the sacrifices of the past. I say "interdependent" because only a police service that is accepted and draws members from both traditions and is therefore accepted throughout the community can hope to be fully effective. It is only by recognising the sacrifices of the past that we can move forward together to meet the challenges of the future. I am determined that the police in Northern Ireland should be modern, representative and effective, and no longer the fulcrum of antagonistic debate.
However, Patten also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will
depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops",
and that judgments will need to be made on how and when they should be introduced. That is advice that the Government will, rightly, keep firmly in mind as we take the process forward.
Patten rightly places much emphasis on human rights. The Chief Constable and the new Policing Board together will be made responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive programme of action, including an audit to ensure full compliance with human rights requirements.
We also accept a new police oath as proposed by Patten, which will be taken by all new recruits to the police service. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for already attested officers to take the new oath, which would in any case raise significant legal difficulties. All officers will, however, receive human rights training and will be required to behave in accordance with a code of ethics. That code will be provided for in legislation and will, like the new oath, emphasise the priority to be given to human rights.
The Government accept Patten's recommendation for the creation of a new Policing Board composed, as the report recommends, to replace the current Police Authority. The new Policing Board will be responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service and holding the Chief Constable and the police service to account.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work of the Police Authority over the past 30 years. Many have served with distinction on the authority and were prepared to come forward even when there was a direct terrorist threat against them. Two members of the authority were murdered by terrorists. The contribution of the authority, its members and staff will not be forgotten.
The report recommends clarifying the roles of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. The broad thrust of the recommendations is that the Policing Board should play a more developed role, setting objectives, priorities and performance targets, while leaving operational control and direction of the police firmly in the Chief Constable's hands.
I entirely agree with the report that the new Policing Board
should be empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively".
I therefore accept the recommendations and will introduce legislation accordingly, subject to the Chief Constable continuing to answer to me on all matters involving national security and the work of relevant agencies.
Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability. He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role, with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan, and I endorse that. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. The latter activity is currently a subject being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on the review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend their function in that way. It will


be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level, in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.
Progress on the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment. Subject to that overall proviso, in line with the report, the Chief Constable has decided to re-organise the police service into district commands based on district council areas and geared towards policing in partnership with the community. District commanders will have much higher levels of devolved authority under the overall command of the Chief Constable, who intends this structural reorganisation to be under way by November.
The Chief Constable will also re-organise police headquarters to produce a slimmer structure. Headquarters will, in future, take a more strategic approach to management. Special Branch and CID will be retained and placed under a single Assistant Chief Constable, as the Chief Constable believes is desirable, when the security situation permits.
The Government accept Patten's recommendations on the future size of the police service—a regular complement of 7,500 full-time officers—provided, as the report says, that the security situation does not deteriorate significantly. We accept Patten's recommendation for the enlargement of the part-time Reserve and the discontinuation of the full-time Reserve. Again, that is subject to the security situation.
The severance arrangements to enable serving police officers, whether regular or reservist, to leave the police service will be generous and sympathetic. The Government are committed to finding the necessary resources. Negotiations with the police staff associations are currently in progress. I hope that those discussions will help all sides to agree arrangements that will address officers' understandable concerns about their future.
I attach particular importance to Patten's recommendations for action to transform the composition of the police service. They are essential to gaining widespread acceptability. I endorse the proposal for 50:50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics, from a pool of candidates, all of whom—I stress this—will have qualified on merit. We propose that the requirement for that special measure should be kept under review on a triennial basis, with rigorous safeguards to ensure that the rightly challenging targets for recruitment do not diminish the standard required of recruits. There will be no question whatever of ex-terrorists joining the service.
Our aim is to develop a police service that is both effective and accepted throughout the community. That aim, as Patten recognises, clearly bears on the name and symbols of the RUC. The issue is not whether the name of the RUC is wrong or something of which people should not be proud. I understand exactly why serving and former officers, their families and, indeed, widows are proud of the RUC and its name. The issue is whether a change in name, underlining a new start, is a necessary and indispensable part of attracting balance in recruits to the new police service.
Of course, the name is not the only barrier to recruitment. At times, there has been disgraceful intimidation of nationalists who wished to join the RUC. However, a change of name was, in Patten's view, essential, and I agree.
That change is needed to signal the new beginning, which will be symbolised in particular by the arrival in the new training environment of the first recruits entering through the new independent procedures and selected on the new balanced basis. That point will come in the autumn next year. At that point, too, I will bring into force the new title, which will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a name that I believe is preferable to that proposed by Patten.
At the same time, a service badge incorporating this title will be introduced after the new Policing Board has had a chance to address the issue. In that context, the RUC will wish to consider how best permanently to record the award to it of the George Cross last autumn. Existing police memorials will remain as they are, and the colour of the uniform will not change.
The Government also accept Patten's important recommendation for information technology improvements to put the police in Northern Ireland at the forefront of communications and information technology, and for police training. I am also delighted to tell the House that we have accepted the case for a new police college, and appropriate resources will be provided. Those measures are in addition to a range of other forward-looking recommendations on practical policing issues, which, although I will not detain the House by detailing them here, we will also implement.
Finally, Patten recommends the appointment of an oversight commissioner to monitor the implementation of those changes, which have been agreed by the Government. That appointment will not in any way cut across the responsibilities of either the new Policing Board or the Chief Constable, and the accountability that I and my colleagues have to the House on policing issues will not diminish as a result. The oversight commissioner will help to create a first-rate police service for the future.
The implementation of those changes will entail a major and challenging programme of work for the Government, the Chief Constable, the Police Authority and, in due course, the Policing Board, but, most of all, for police officers themselves. This is not an overnight event, but a process of change that will extend over several years. I am confident that the police will meet the challenge of change positively and with commitment.
For those in the Unionist community who have fears, I urge them to accept the need for significant change to create a police service in which all can feel that they belong and with which all can identify. To nationalists who have for so long withheld their support from the police in Northern Ireland, I would ask them to reflect on the transformation that is planned and to reconsider their position. It is now time for them to support this programme of change, unambiguously to support the police and to encourage young men and women from their community to join the police. The prize is a modern, effective police service drawing support and strength from all parts of the community. It is within our grasp. The proposals I have announced today should enable us to achieve it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In paying the most handsome tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the


RUC Reserve, it must be said that without their courage, even-handed professionalism and terrible sacrifice, the Good Friday agreement and the opportunities in Northern Ireland that have flowed from it would quite simply not exist. They have been the thin green line standing between the maintenance of democracy and a descent into anarchy. Their sacrifice is without equal: 302 officers have been murdered and more than 10,000 maimed or injured. The award of the George Cross is richly deserved.
With that in mind, does the Secretary of State share the widespread dismay that one of the most disappointing and hurtful aspects of the Patten report is its failure to pay proper testimony to the sacrifice and achievements of the RUC? The Patten report is nevertheless a useful basis for what policing could be like if peace were firmly established. The overwhelming majority of its recommendations are non-controversial, have been foreshadowed by the Chief Constable himself and should be implemented quickly, but there are aspects of the statement that we cannot support.
We do not believe that the name of the RUC should go. It is a name of which past and serving officers and their families are justly proud. The evidence used to support change is not convincing. The most recent Police Authority survey shows conclusively that changing the name will cause major offence in the Protestant community and will not lead to significant improvements in support from the Catholic community. The hugely respected Monsignor Denis Faul has argued for retaining the name. The Secretary of State should accept the compromise name recommended by ourselves, the Police Federation and others: the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If it is right to honour the force for seeing us through the past 30 years, surely the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name intact, has earned the right to be Northern Ireland's police service in what we all hope will be a new era.
The Secretary of State referred to a number of security-sensitive measures. Does he agree that it would be dangerous folly to introduce them before there is a real and lasting peace and substantial decommissioning? Will he assure us that, at a time when the capacity of the main terrorist organisations remains totally undiminished, there will not be substantial cuts in the size and capability of the force, including the abolition of the full-time Reserve?
We of course want greater representation of the Catholic community in the RUC. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the greatest disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains IRA intimidation? Like him, I call on the leaders of the Catholic community to encourage their young men and women to join the police force.
We welcome what the Secretary of State said about the district policing boards, but what guarantees can he give that they and the new Policing Board will not lead to greater politicisation of policing, rather than the removal of politics from it? Will he give me this afternoon an absolute guarantee that the operational independence of the Chief Constable will be fully preserved?
Everyone, including the RUC, recognises that there must be changes. We all share the goal of building a police service that is genuinely representative of the community, routinely unarmed and has no need of flak jackets and armoured vehicles; yet for many people, the

process has been all take and no give by the terrorists. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the greatest contribution to dispelling that and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland would be for the terrorists immediately and finally to begin decommissioning their illegally held weapons?

Mr. Mandelson: I say straight away to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly share his views about decommissioning. The Good Friday agreement is not there to be cherry-picked; its parts stand or fall together. It is not acceptable for some parts of it to be implemented and for others to be overlooked or forgotten. Decommissioning, as Sinn Fein itself has acknowledged, is an essential part of the peace process. If it is to be completed by the deadline in the Good Friday agreement of May this year, an early start is absolutely necessary.
On the right hon. Gentleman's overall response, I am glad that he shares our vision and goals for a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. The problem is that, although he shares the ends, he is not prepared to will the means of getting there and of achieving that new beginning for the police service that we all want.
I, as it happens, regret that the Patten commission did not say more about the sacrifices of the RUC. I have said that before, and it remains my view. I understand why it did not, but it is a deficiency in the report, and an unfortunate one.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I have already said this—that one of the factors, and an important one, in discouraging people from the nationalist community from joining the RUC was straightforward IRA bullying, thuggery and intimidation. However, other important factors are that Catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland do not identify with the RUC and that the nationalist community does not encourage its young people to join. People from the nationalist community who have thought of joining have feared a loss of family and community support for joining. We have to tackle that problem and make changes to make the police force in Northern Ireland acceptable to the nationalist community as a whole if we are to persuade individuals from that community to come forward and join that force.
I can say quite honestly that in a perfect world I, too, would have kept the name of the RUC. I would have liked it to be maintained. It is a proud name that represents a fine tradition and is rightly honoured by the whole RUC family, but I am afraid that it is not owned by both communities in Northern Ireland. I realise the hurt that is involved in giving up the name, but I equally recognise that the police service will never be entirely accepted unless that change is made, so change there must be.

Mr. John Hume: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. My party will study it in detail. We look forward to working with him and with the other parties to implement the Patten report in full.
This is a time for reflection. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the basis of order in any society is not the police force but agreement on how we are governed. That is the most fundamental principle of democracy. When there is no agreement on how people are governed, no matter where that is, the police force will be seen as on one side or the other.
There have been victims of past failures to reach agreement on how we are governed. That has been the situation in Northern Ireland since it was founded. There


have been many victims of that failure, especially in the past 30 years, but now we have a new beginning and a real opportunity to create a lasting basis of peace and order on our streets. For the first time, we have reached an agreement on how we should be governed, and we are already working together to implement it.
The parties must take the opportunity to have meetings with the Secretary of State and talk to everyone who needs to be talked to about implementing the Patten report in full. That will give us a police service that has the loyalty of the entire community and a membership drawn from the entire community, so that when policemen walk the streets in Northern Ireland, no matter what district they are in, they are walking among friends. That would be a real change. It is an enormous challenge to us all, and I hope that we are up to it.

Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman said a single word with which I disagree, but I have something to add. When we have studied what I have said, debated the detail, considered exactly how the proposals are to be implemented and all reached the conclusion that a new beginning for policing has indeed been created in Northern Ireland, that will be the time when leaders of the nationalist community, like him—both political and religious leaders—must stand up, speak up and back the police, and call for people from the nationalist community to support the police. He is right to take time to look at the details of what I have said. I hope that in due course, when he has studied them, that call will be forthcoming.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Secretary of State accept the support in large part of my party for the proposals in the Patten report? I brought up the matter recently in Northern Ireland questions, and I am encouraged to see that progress will now be made on the proposals to try to resolve some of the issues that he has just highlighted.
We support some of the specific elements of the report: for example, the very strong emphasis on human rights, including the commitment to uphold human rights in the oath. That gives Northern Ireland a real opportunity to lead the United Kingdom in terms of the attitude and character of the police force.
Will the Secretary of State also accept our support for the concept of district policing, which puts a greater emphasis on community policing? The latter might in turn help to dismantle the power of the military vigilante operations in some parts of Northern Ireland, which lead to the completely unacceptable paramilitary beatings that have been going on for so long.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept our support for the introduction, at long last, of video recording in custody suites? We have criticised the Government for failing to implement that for some time. It is good to see the promise of a generous retirement and severance payment scheme. The details of the scheme will determine whether those eligible will agree to it.
Is the Secretary of State sensitive to the real and genuine concerns felt by many people, not merely in the Chamber but in Northern Ireland, about the change of name and symbols? While I recognise the difficulties and sensitivities that surround the matter, we tend to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that something needs to

change. Given the reaction in the Chamber, it is clear to those who would abandon such a closely held and greatly revered name as the Royal Ulster Constabulary that such a change has to be made sensitively. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, while some may try to score party political gain from such statements, those who genuinely represent Northern Ireland constituencies and rightly bring those concerns to the fore here today have the right to be listened to and to participate in the discussions and negotiations that must necessarily take place before those changes are implemented?
I have two further concerns. Will the Secretary of State reassure us by reiterating that the police force will not be reduced in size until it is clear that the peace is long lasting and sustainable? Otherwise, there could be instability.
Will the Secretary of State commit himself to asking about quotas? Does he realise that getting more Catholics into the police force cannot be achieved simply by having a 50:50 quota in place? As he said, the key issue is that Catholics have been dissuaded from applying. Will he consider adding to the Patten recommendations by doing something to promote such applications in the first place?
Finally, the Patten report is, by and large, uncontroversial, as we have heard. Therefore, the Secretary of State will need to give us an assurance that the matters that are so controversial and provoke such strong emotional as well as intellectual reactions will need to be handled with the greatest sensitivity in the House.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and that of the Liberal Democrat party for what I have announced. I can readily accept and endorse the bulk of what he said. On the oath, the House may be interested to learn that the Home Secretary is considering extending the reference to human rights to the police oath for the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be welcome.
On the hon. Gentleman's questions, yes, we will be doing everything we can to promote the new police service and to encourage applicants from all parts of society in Northern Ireland, not merely nationalists, to join. On reducing the size of the police service, that is a judgment that the Chief Constable will make in the first instance, and it will indeed be linked to his assessment of the security threat.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will remember that the very first paragraph of the terms of reference of the Patten commission instructed that commission to
bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements".
Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) —;the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force that has stood four-square between the law-abiding community—the greater number of people in Northern Ireland—and the terrorists for the past 30 years? Can I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is misleading of him to suggest that the changes that are taking place have anything to do with the Belfast agreement, or with anything that my party assented to within the terms of that agreement?
May I remind the Secretary of State that his predecessor, on her first visit as Secretary of State to Northern Ireland, made the dangerous promise that she would change the nature of the RUC? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the preparations for Patten were carried out by the Chief Constable when he was Deputy Chief Constable and brought forward his fundamental review? Furthermore, does the Secretary of State accept that many of the points in that fundamental review were quite acceptable to the majority of people and would have found widespread community support if they had not been changed and corrupted by the Patten commission, and if those issues had not been endorsed by the Government?
It appears that there were two major objectives of the Government's plans. One was to change the name of the RUC, and I have dealt with that. The other was to ensure that the RUC would be able to recruit from both traditions within Northern Ireland—something that my party wholeheartedly supports. However, is the Secretary of State suggesting that we should create district police partnerships, in which the scum of parochial politics—the Mr. McElduffs and Mr. Conways—will participate?
In case people do not know who Mr. McElduff and Mr. Conway are, I should point out that Mr. McElduff has campaigned against a senior Roman Catholic cleric, Monsignor Denis Faul, who has tried to interface with the RUC on behalf of the community with which he works. If Mr. McElduff and his like are prepared to take on Monsignor Denis Faul and to ask the archbishop to remove him as parish priest in Carrickmoor, what are they likely to do to 18 and 19-year-old young men and women whom the Secretary of State and I want to join the RUC?
The intimidation will continue because although the Secretary of State has proposed that the name of the RUC be changed, one thing has not changed—the name of Sinn Fein-IRA. Those people continue to organise and to be armed. They continue to ride on the backs of the entire community and, as Monsignor Faul has said, specifically the Roman Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland—

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand fully the strong feelings on this issue, but I have a lot of business today to safeguard. The Secretary of State has let the House know that there will be areas of legislation on which speeches will be made. With respect to the House, today is not the time to make speeches—it is the time to question the statement made by the Secretary of State. I have so far called only three other Members to question the statement. I hope that those whom I wish to call will be brisk in putting their question and, likewise, that the Secretary of State will be brisk in answering. This cannot go on, as we have so much more business to conduct this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point?

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, that you recognise the sensitivity of the issue. This concerns the future of law and order in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. He talked about human rights, but can he tell us whether there will be any human rights training for those two members of Sinn Fein-IRA who will be on the police board? How will the Secretary of State find hundreds of millions of pounds to create the

package he has promised, when last week he could not provide the £5 million overtime money requested by the Chief Constable? Is the Secretary of State disappointed that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in his contribution, did not encourage members of his tradition to join the RUC?

Mr. Mandelson: I think that it would be best if I responded to three specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, rather than responding in kind to the rhetoric that he offered and that, on mature reflection, he might like to reconsider.

Mr. Maginnis: I am not a betrayer.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman has said to me many times in the past that he compliments me on what I have said about the RUC, that he welcomes statements I have made in support of the RUC, and that he is glad of the stand that I have made for the RUC since I became Secretary of State. Therefore, I am surprised that he chooses to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private.
On the three specific points, it is true that the decisions I am announcing today stand alone on their own merits and independently from the Good Friday agreement. I intend that the reform of the police in Northern Ireland will continue, whatever cloud happens to gather over the institutions of the Good Friday agreement.
As for the district police partnerships, there is no question of any member of any district police partnership being able to exercise any improper influence, let alone control, over any aspect of police operations or any individual member of the police in that district. As far as human rights training is concerned, each member of the police board will be subject to the same strictures and expectations as every member of the police service of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There are only two collective areas to which the George Cross has ever been issued—one is Malta and the other is the RUC. Malta was proud to call itself Malta GC. I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that, in 2001, the Northern Ireland police force can be known as the Northern Ireland police force GC. That will be a continuing recognition of the work of the RUC into the future. I hope that Ulster Unionist Members will accept that the significance of the award of the George Cross to the RUC will continue to be recognised in the development of a police force that will service the whole community.

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The George Cross was awarded by the Queen to the RUC in recognition of its success in leading a campaign against the most sustained onslaught of terrorism the developed world has ever seen. During that time, the RUC exhibited extraordinary courage, bravery and valour, and that will never cease to be associated with the RUC and also—I hope—with the police as a whole in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Chief Constable are considering how the award of the George Cross can be recognised in perpetuity—I am certainly determined that it should be.

Mr. Peter Brooke: On 9 September, when the Patten report was published, the Secretary of State' s predecessor said:
This report is about policing. As Chris Patten said, it is not about politics…It has been the RUC who have held the fabric of this society together over the past 30 years.
Against that background, can the Secretary of State share with the House the reactions at all levels of the RUC itself to these proposals, as the morale of that force is crucial to the future?

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the morale of the RUC is absolutely central to our continuing ability to combat terrorism, and crime in all its forms. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for focusing on the question of morale.
I have never once visited Northern Ireland without meeting members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have done more than just meet them: I have sat down to discuss policing with groups of officers drawn from all ranks. That has happened on each and every occasion that I have made a visit.
I acknowledge that there is uncertainty in the RUC. There is some fear—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And hostility.

Mr. Mandelson: Among some individuals there is indeed hostility to the changes that are being made. However, it is equally true that there is a ready recognition in the RUC that change must come. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the police in Northern Ireland have acted as a security force. The force now has to change into a normal police service that polices Northern Ireland according to normal, peacetime terms.
Officers understand why change must come about, and readily accept and acknowledge that the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland is simply unsustainable. A normal, peacetime society cannot be policed by a force that is so extremely unrepresentative of the society that it serves. Therefore, although all RUC officers may not agree about the means that we are employing to overcome that imbalance, they certainly share our objectives. When they reflect on what we are proposing—and on the paucity of alternatives—many officers will come to accept that, painful and hurtful as they are, this change and these reforms are necessary.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is full support for the statement that he has made today among those on the Labour Benches? He has made a number of courageous and difficult decisions, and he deserves our party's support. However, is he also aware that large sections of the community in parts of Northern Ireland do not share the admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary expressed by many hon. Members today? Officers in the RUC who uphold the law impartially always deserve our support, but some officers have fallen short of that high ideal on many occasions. It should be recognised that that is one of the reasons for the changes announced today.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House about the role of the new oversight commissioner? When can we expect the name of that person to be announced? Will the

appointment require legislation, and what steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that whoever is appointed has the full support of both communities and of the new Northern Ireland police service?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his strong support of, and welcome for, what I have announced. His words will find an echo in crucial parts of Northern Ireland, and notably in the nationalist community.
In response to his specific question about the oversight commissioner, I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it will be necessary to wait for legislation to make appointment to the post. The search for that personality has already begun, and I believe that it will be possible to appoint someone who commands cross-community support. However, I want to stress that the responsibility of the oversight commissioner is to implement decisions taken by the Government. It will not be the commissioner's job to cut across the responsibilities of the Chief Constable, the Policing Board or the Secretary of State.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I declare an interest. Like others hon. Members, I may owe my life to the professionalism and bravery of RUC officers.
While it is beyond argument that Northern Ireland needs a more broadly based police service, does the Secretary of State understand that many will object in principle to his decision to change the name? Many more will strongly object because they will suspect that he is doing it only to try to buy an element of peace from terrorists. To thwart that perception, will the Secretary of State agree to make the name change—if he is determined to go ahead with it—conditional on the acceptance of all the main aspects of the Good Friday agreement?

Mr. Mandelson: That linkage between the Patten recommendations and the Good Friday agreement would not be very welcome to all members of the Ulster Unionist party, for obvious reasons. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the objectives that I have set out a broad acceptance. There is no question of my having judged these issues on anything other than their strict merits—not for what they might or might not buy in return. I am simply not trading the future of the police in Northern Ireland in some sort of political marketplace. People may disagree with certain conclusions, and they may take issue with some of the details of what I have been saying, but I hope that they appreciate the sincerity of our objectives.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? Under the superb chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), it produced a report in July 1998 that was a useful signpost for the Patten commission.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the all-party group saw the need for significant reform of the RUC to make it more representative of the communities that it seeks to serve? Does he recognise that that principle was underpinned and endorsed by the people of Northern


Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement? Does he recognise that the members of the Select Committee dealt with such controversial issues as the need to address the incompatibility of membership of sectarian organisations like the Orange Order and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Finally, does my right hon. Friend regret that there is not more mature consideration across the Chamber of his response to the excellent work of the Patten commission?

Mr. Mandelson: When people consider the careful and sensitive way in which I am implementing a number of Chris Patten's recommendations over time, I think that they will focus more on what they welcome in my comments than on those things to which they object.
Of course I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Its report was a significant milestone in considering these matters. I believe that the Patten commission extensively took into account the Select Committee's report, and quite right too.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that the remit of the Patten commission was to produce proposals that would find broad acceptance and support throughout the entire community? Bearing in mind the fact that the pro-Union community produced a petition with more than 400,000 signatures—300,000 from Northern Ireland—and given the reaction of the elected representatives of that community, can it be said that the Patten proposals and the Government's decision to act on them can possibly be in accordance with the principle of widespread community support?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, have repeatedly said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? They cannot be severed. However, under the d'Hondt principle, these proposals would place on the supervising advisory board at least two members of a political party that is inextricably linked with one of the most ferocious—if not the most ferocious—terrorist organisations in western Europe. That is the board to which the Chief Constable will be accountable.
In relation to the comments that have been made on the award of the George Cross and the difficulties that will arise, is the Secretary of State aware that many members of the RUC believe that that award was made for political purposes? As one senior officer said, it was tantamount to a soldier being given the Victoria Cross on the first day of the Somme, and shot for dereliction of duty on the 10th day.

Mr. Mandelson: I shall leave it to the House to judge the final remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he does not support the Executive; he does not support devolution; he does not support local decisions being taken by local people with local accents in Northern Ireland. He has made no contribution at all. No pain and no gain are experienced, given or received by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The key point about the contribution made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whenever he speaks against the Good Friday agreement and against local

devolved responsibility in Northern Ireland, he never offers any alternative. He never suggests how we might achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. He has been on form this afternoon, as usual.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: The background to the Patten report was based on one of the most extensive consultation and listening exercises undertaken in Northern Ireland. When Chris Patten reported, he said that the report must be considered as a package and not cherry-picked. He acknowledged that the changing of symbols would undoubtedly be controversial—crucially, some of the symbols that were about tradition and the past had to change. However, the report was not about disbanding the RUC, but transforming it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to maintain and build trust and confidence in both communities, the most fitting and most lasting memorial that we can offer to the 302 officers who died and to the thousands who were injured is for all hon. Members of the House to play their part in ensuring that the reforms succeed?

Mr. Mandelson: I welcome my hon. Friend and his contribution in every sense of the term. He is right. The greatest disservice to the RUC would be for people to argue that there is no need for any change by that body, or for them to try to manipulate the emotions of the RUC family. That would only make the pain of the change all the worse. I hope that those who appear to be grandstanding—more for political effect than to give support to the members of the RUC family—will bear that very much in mind.

Mr. Michael Mates: If the ultimate aim of all these changes is to produce a balanced police force, acceptable to all, that is an aim that I would certainly share with the Secretary of State. However, is he aware that, at the end of the day, this is not about names, symbols and emblems, offensive as the decisions on those have been to the majority community in Northern Ireland? It is actually about getting the IRA to stop intimidating members of the nationalist community to prevent them from joining a police service in which they can be identified.
If the Secretary of State has not had assurances from the likes of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness that they will acknowledge that this is a new start, and that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) markedly did not say, the nationalist community must now be encouraged to join the new police service, all that he has done is to take another step down the road to appeasement of the terrorists.

Mr. Mandelson: There is no question of appeasing anyone. During my political career, I have not been known to be very willing to appease, or pander to, anyone. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about intimidation, but I think that the best way to ensure that that intimidation is isolated, rejected and overcome is to ensure that those who wish to join the police can do so in the knowledge that they have the consent and backing of their wider community. That is what is so important.
I have only just this afternoon announced the Government's conclusions and decisions on the implementation of the Patten report. People have hardly


had very long to reflect on what I have said. I hope that, when they do, their commitment will be great, and that we can successfully overcome whatever residual intimidation might linger in and around the nationalist community, so that we achieve the balanced and acceptable police service that the hon. Gentleman says that he supports.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend find a way of expressing the fact that the normalisation of the police service is of immense benefit to the whole community of Northern Ireland, including the constituents of many Opposition Members who are fiercely antagonistic to these proposals? Will my right hon. Friend, in seeking to persuade people of the benefits of the proposals, emphasise that those members of the nationalist community of a strong disposition to peace nevertheless hardly ever regard it as natural for their offspring to enter the police service?
I speak as someone with relatives in the Province, in the nationalist community, and as someone who comes from a line of people, many of whose uncles made the police force in New York, Chicago and elsewhere. That family tradition never emerges in Northern Ireland, because we need a discontinuity. We have had an unnatural—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard Madam Speaker's comments. I should be grateful, and so would the whole House, if he would now put his question very briefly.

Mr. McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that message about normalisation, about the importance of the name change, is taken on board? That is the real barrier to peace-loving nationalist people who refuse to countenance joining the police force.

Mr. Mandelson: A normal society in Northern Ireland is precisely what all hon. Members, of whatever party, are seeking to achieve—a normal society, in which people can go about their everyday lives without fear of bombs and barricades; a properly locally run, democratic society, in which there is not the high-profile security presence that many people find intimidating but that, for the time being, it is necessary and important to maintain, and a society in which there is a normal police service. Those are all different definitions and descriptions of the same thing—a normal society. It is into that state that Northern Ireland is now finally emerging. The decisions on the police that the Government have taken will assist, and not hinder, that further progress.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State accept that, to some of us, he has appeared to sign the death warrant of the most efficient, effective, professional and courageous police force in the world and has sold out lock, stock and barrel to the republican element and terrorism in Northern Ireland? To whom do many of those to whom the right hon. Gentleman has pandered with his bland words owe their loyalty? I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom. Are those to whom he has pandered of the same view? Do they owe the same loyalty as I do?

Mr. Mandelson: The whole point of the peaceful environment that we are creating in Northern Ireland and

the political dispensation that is emerging there is that people are able to live as Unionists—proud of their Britishness and continuing as part of the United Kingdom—alongside others who have a different nationalist aspiration. It is to find coexistence and harmony between the two traditions that the Good Friday agreement was created in the first place. I am afraid that I do not accept in one respect what the hon. Gentleman said about the police service in Northern Ireland. Yes, the RUC is efficient and it has won successfully a war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, if it is to remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past, it must also become representative of the society that it seeks to police. To achieve that representativeness and to enable the police to continue to be effective, we are implementing the decisions that I have announced.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement that maintains the momentum for the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland. However, in the light of the photographs that were published this week of members of the Royal Irish Regiment parading with Orange Order banners, what proposals does he have for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment?

Mr. Mandelson: I have absolutely no proposals for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment. I look forward to home regiments continuing to be garrisoned in Northern Ireland in perpetuity. As for the photographs to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that they are a matter that relevant commanding officers and the General Officer Commanding will be willing to look into if my hon. Friend were to raise it with them.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As a Minister in 1970 at the time of the previous review of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and as someone who owes his life to the RUC, I naturally feel emotional today. However, I accept that there have to be changes to policing in Northern Ireland. After 30 years, there must be changes.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Ulster Unionist party agrees with 70 or 80 per cent. of the Patten report? However, there is no doubt that the report landed the Secretary of State in a difficult situation and on a topic that will cause on-going debate for several months. Does he understand that Ulster Unionists agree that we must have more of the Roman Catholic community serving as police officers in Northern Ireland?
We agree that there must be training in human rights, not just for policemen but for members of police boards. We agree with the proposals for a police college and, of course, with the information technology proposals, but does the Secretary of State understand that all that could be achieved without changing the name of the RUC, a force that has served Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom well. Will he also tell us for how many years the oversight commissioner will be in office? Will the 50:50 proposal for enrolment of new officers into the police system in Northern Ireland contravene fair employment legislation? Will the 50:50 proportions apply to part-time members as well?

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a special contribution to this debate because he was a casualty of the terrorist war that the RUC fought and


finally won. His contribution therefore has considerable weight. I am grateful to him for saying that the overwhelming bulk of the changes proposed by Patten, which we are agreeing to today, commands the support of all sections of society from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all genuine respect, that I do not agree, and cannot accept, that, if we failed to change the RUC's name, it would simply be possible to wait indefinitely for people from the nationalist community to join the police. I do not believe that it would happen. If I thought that there was any way that we could have made those changes and transformed the composition of the police in Northern Ireland without changing the name, I would have done it.
On the basis of all my contacts, my conversations, my research and my exposure to opinion in the nationalist community, I do not accept that nationalists or Catholics in Northern Ireland would join a police service that continued to be called the RUC. Frankly, they associate that name with Unionism and the British state. They accept that the principle of consent is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, but they also have a nationalist identity and aspiration, and those must be made compatible with their desire to join the police service. I am afraid that a change in the name is a necessary condition for that.

Mr. Taylor: What about part-timers?

Mr. Mandelson: On the specific question of the part-time reservists, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Ms Margaret Moran: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the centrality of human rights to the reform of the police. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to find that funny. It is a radical move that should be extended.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred earlier, found that one of the major impediments to the retention of police from the Catholic community was the wider canteen culture that remains prevalent within the RUC? Will there be measures, alongside the new quotas that are proposed, to ensure that recruits from the Catholic community—who will increase from the current figure of 8 per cent.—will be retained and trained appropriately?

Mr. Mandelson: I readily accept my hon. Friend's point. RUC training is the best and the most rigorous of any police service in the world, and those standards will continue when the new police service is created.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I spent about a year working closely with the RUC, and I patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland with Catholic and Protestant officers. I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his desire to get more Catholics into the police force. Everybody does.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the evidence of his own Department from April 1988, which said that the main reason given by Catholics for not joining the RUC is that they
fear intimidation or attack on themselves or their relatives"?
Why instead—this question has been asked before—has he given way to the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA and as a result is allowing the very people who have attacked and intimidated police officers to have their way? He is giving way to those who have sustained the terror campaign of which he spoke earlier.

Mr. Mandelson: If I were meeting the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA, I would be disbanding the RUC, because that is what they want and have demanded. They have made a string of demands that are completely unacceptable—they were unacceptable to the Patten commission and remain unacceptable to the Government. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's experience and knowledge, but I repeat that the use of words or symbols perceived to associate the police with one side of the constitutional argument has an effect. Their use is an inhibiting factor that discourages people from joining the police, over and above any form or degree of intimidation. We have to recognise that. In an effort to overcome it, we support the changes that I have described this afternoon.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which gives a precis of the way forward for policing. I am sure that he agrees that today is an important day for Northern Ireland. The changes will enable us to have a police force that commands the respect of all the community—I say "all" advisedly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, to underpin the peace that we have, it is absolutely essential that both the actuality and the symbolism of the new police service is readily acceptable to both communities.
I should like to place it on record that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which represents the vast majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland, expresses our deep regret over the deaths of RUC members who have been murdered, and our sympathy with their families, who continue to grieve, and with those families who have suffered maimings or killings. We have put that on record many times before, even in our written response to Patten.
Having said that, I find it sad that those sacrifices are being used almost as a political weapon to prevent progress. That is most regrettable. I am sure that, in his travels around Northern Ireland and conversations with members of the RUC, the right hon. Gentleman has, like me, found that they welcome change—the vast majority of them want it. They want to be acceptable and to walk in safety in our communities. The only way to achieve that is through the Patten proposals, accepted by the Secretary of State, which will create a force that is acceptable to both sides.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the best interpreters of the will and attitudes of the nationalist community are its representatives. Much of the blame for


the bipartisan situation surrounding the RUC lies with Opposition Members from Northern Ireland referring to that force as their police force, their men—theirs, not the communities'. There are many instances of that being true: we all remember Bombay street and Hooker street, and the RUC B-specials burning down one street after another. That remains in our folk memory. We must have impartial symbols and attitudes if we are to underpin a new service and the peace, and thereby prevent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier comment, so will he please now bring his question to a quick conclusion?

Mr. McGrady: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely essential that the symbolism, as well as the actuality, of reform is carried through, so that the full support of both communities can be gained?

Mr. Mandelson: Obviously, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is notable that he and other leaders of the SDLP have readily and generously associated themselves with tributes to the sacrifices made by the RUC during the past 30 years. I am grateful to him for repeating that this afternoon.
It is unfortunate that certain individual—probably maverick—Unionist spokesmen have in the past 24 hours referred to the RUC in a way that suggests that the police service literally belongs to Unionists in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that no Member of the House has done that, but other Unionist spokesmen have. It is as if they are saying, "You can do anything you like in Northern Ireland as long as you keep your hands off our police force." It is precisely that sort of attitude and statement that confirms people's worst suspicions. I am glad to say that it is thoroughly unrepresentative of mainstream Unionist opinion and of the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's support will be forthcoming for the changes that I have announced, and will be followed by an encouragement of his supporters

and those from his community to join the new Northern Ireland police service. I cannot predict better than the Chief Constable himself, when he said:
If these recommendations"—
referring to the Patten report—
bring about a new beginning for policing, the pain that my colleagues and friends are being asked to endure becomes a pain that they have to endure for the greater gain".
That "greater gain" is a representative police service in Northern Ireland, one that has cross-community support and that nationalists finally join. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be encouraging them in that direction.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the immense contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland and in fighting terrorism throughout the United Kingdom?
Given what the right hon. Gentleman has said about district policing partnership boards, will he give an undertaking to the House that any legislation that he brings forward will not contain powers that would enable those boards to employ terrorists, as recommendation 32 of the Patten report would make possible?

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman either was not here or did not hear what I said in my opening statement. Possibly he was here, in which case I apologise to him. I said that I was not at this stage going to proceed with those aspects of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to community policing and the expenditure of moneys for those projects to which he has referred. That remains the position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that this is a very important matter. However, it is one to which the House will be returning in due course. We have spent a long time on the statement and, to preserve the rest of the business, we must move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to the proposal to deal with the Disqualifications Bill next Monday and Tuesday. I know that that has not yet been confirmed by the Leader of the House, but I seek your advice, given that the proposal is, as I understand it, that there will be Second Reading on Monday followed by all remaining stages the following day. That appears to present consider difficulty to hon. Members in the tabling of amendments. Will you advise me and the rest of the House on how we can go about tabling amendments to a highly controversial Bill? Is there a way in which you or Madam Speaker can help hon. Members in the tabling of amendments, given the extraordinarily and, in my view, unacceptably short time that is being proposed between Second Reading of a controversial Bill and the remaining stages, which will be dealt with the very next day? I would appreciate your help and guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has asked me to let it be known that she understands the right hon. Gentleman's problem. The selection of amendments in Committee is likely to be for the Chairman of Ways and Means but, in the absence of any order to permit the tabling of amendments before Second Reading, Madam Speaker is sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be sympathetic to starred amendments.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you notice that, in the debate this afternoon, which lasted a considerable time, only one woman Member was fortunate enough to be called? I raise the matter because, in Northern Ireland,

women's voices are not easily heard, and I should be grateful if, in future, the Speaker's Office would take that point on board.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that Madam Speaker and the Deputy Speakers are entirely fair in selecting hon. Members, whether they are male or female. The hon. Lady made the point herself when she referred to a debate. It was, in fact, a statement, but it verged on a debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the difficulties to which you referred, but I want to put it on record that the capital city of Northern Ireland, Belfast, had one representative in the Chamber, who was not called. It is the largest area of the Province, and the hon. Member representing it has served for the past year with the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a parliamentary police scheme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he, too, will understand that we spent an extremely long time on the statement. We have other business to deal with, and we must move on.

Mr. William Ross: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on next week's business. Surely it is the usual procedure of the House not only to allow time between Second Reading and final stages, but between Committee and Report stages. They all seem to be rolled into one on the Disqualifications Bill. How on earth can we discuss it during Committee stage and table amendments for the remaining stages later on the same day? That does not make sense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no strict rule of the House, as the hon. Gentleman implies. I cannot add to my earlier comments.

Community Protection (Airport Noise and Pollution)

Mr. David Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes.
There is little effective legislation to control the levels of noise and pollution generated by aircraft and airports. Indeed, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifically exempts aircraft noise and emissions from the general nuisance controls that it contains, irrespective of whether an airfield is small and unlicensed or a major national airport.
Tranquillity and air quality are environmental Cinderellas, whose interests have been continually damaged by their ugly sisters, noise and pollution. The aim of my Bill is to give much needed protection to airport communities against the incessant noise and growing pollution that they daily endure.
No hon. Member who has a sizeable airport in or near his or her constituency will be unaware of the impact on the local economy. The industry estimates a contribution of £10 billion to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product, and half a million direct and indirect jobs. Only last month, the number of jobs generated by East Midlands airport in north-west Leicestershire went through the 5,000 barrier, and numbers are still rising rapidly.
Nevertheless, the aviation industry tends to overplay its future economic potential. It is apparent that the successful and expanding businesses of the new century are more likely to depend on smart communication systems than on the physical movement of goods, which characterised the industries of the past century.
As with all economic activity, aviation has an environmental downside, which needs to be tackled in the interests of sustainability. As the number of air travellers has grown and the volumes of freight moved have increased, the loss of open countryside, higher pollution levels and the perpetual noise intrusion are the price being paid by the many thousands of people living around and on the flight paths to the nation's airports.
It is in no one's interest to ignore the increasingly widespread anxieties about the environmental impact of air travel. For too long, aircraft noise and air pollution have had a seriously adverse effect on the quality of life of hundreds of airport communities. Projected new laws by the previous Government were shelved time and again. That must not continue. The time is right for the Government to act, and the Bill includes some suggestions for action.
I welcome today's introduction by the Government of a national air quality strategy and I support their existing commitment to drawing up a 30-year airports policy, about which consultation begins soon. However, I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to widen the brief to devise a comprehensive air transport policy.
There is already a specific target of expanding regional airports to take the pressure off the south-east—from where two thirds of passengers fly and where three quarters of airline and airport jobs are located. However, any such expansion should be accompanied—or, indeed, preceded—by a far more effective regulatory framework spelling out the rights and responsibilities of airports, planners and local communities.
All that is underpinned by the pressing need for the Government to accept that there are limits to the number of aircraft movements that the system can tackle and the effects that communities can tolerate. In short, we should abandon the predict-and-provide principle, which has seriously flawed our air transport planning for a generation. We must also abandon the stock DETR belief that the current local plan process is adequate for resolving airport issues. It is not and does not.
Using a projected average annual growth rate of 6 per cent. in demand for flights would lead, over the 30-year strategy period, to a tripling in size of every regional airport. Down that nightmare flight path lies an environmental disaster of unimaginable proportions for already beleaguered airport communities. Air travel and air freight are significant players in our economy. They must be allowed to grow, but only in a responsible and responsive way.
A key principle in environmental policy formulation is that the polluter must pay. However, the aviation industry seems to be excluded from that. It allows—even requires—the wider society and economy to bear the burden of its environmental costs. The aeroplane is the most polluting form of transport, and is responsible for around 10 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is exempt from tax on its kerosene fuel. That problem requires urgent, Europe-wide action.
Airport communities are almost powerless to protect their quality of life against excessive airport noise and must often rely on the good will of their powerful and important neighbour. However, business pressures are such that any voluntary codes of conduct can steadily become ineffective and unsustainable.
The focus of the Bill is raising airports' operating standards, especially in relation to noise limitation. Apart from the designated airports of Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, which are subject to specific noise legislation, all the others depend on the lottery of local agreements. The Bill would superimpose a minimum framework, which specified common and enforceable limits that airports would have to observe for renewed Civil Aviation Authority licensing. Those limits would not be part of a voluntary agreement, or reluctantly conceded for planning permission, and they would not lack independent means of monitoring and verification. They would be part of a comprehensive deal, which would aim to protect the quality of life of airport communities.
What needs to be contained in the framework? A prime requirement is the financing and installation by the airport of an appropriate noise monitoring system, relevant to the pattern of noise that it generates. The system would have to be managed independently, with penalties for operators who violated noise, route and other restrictions. The proceeds would be distributed to local organisations by an independent local panel.
Secondly, the airport, local authorities and airport communities would collectively agree noise-preferential routes, especially for departing aircraft, with appropriate


restrictions on turning and overflying. Comprehensive mandatory pilots notes on the agreed local regime would have to be produced and incorporated into relevant publications.
Thirdly, there would be a collective agreement about seasonal night flying quotas, with a complete ban on chapter II aircraft, whether hushkitted or not, and on chapter III aircraft above a specified weight, as the heavier ones can be even noisier than the older aircraft that they replace. Fourthly, an independent executive forum of airport owners, operators, local authorities and community groups would monitor and try to resolve any airport environmental problems.
Finally, the framework would include a range of provisions such as ground running, property soundproofing, complaint logging, public safety zones and control of further development.
The patchwork quilt of regulatory bodies means that a national approach is needed to obtain higher environmental standards for all airports. The comprehensive action needed for noise and pollution mitigation has to be part of a national aviation policy, which is itself the basis of discussion with international aviation bodies and other Governments. Technological and operational measures alone will never obtain that limitation of aircraft noise and disturbance levels which is so necessary for so many people.
My Bill is a meaningful, reasonable and enforceable measure that would produce a more satisfactory framework within which airport operation and development could occur. It would provide a level runway for airports so that they could raise standards in parallel with their competitors and improve relations with the people affected by their operations. It spells out to local planning authorities an unambiguous and enforceable regime based on environmental considerations and would achieve a better balance between commercial airport needs and legitimate local requirements. Finally, it offers to airport communities no less than an environmental charter to control the noise and pollution generated by the aerial motorway over their homes. I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Taylor, Liz Blackman, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Paul Flynn, Judy Mallaber, Mr. John McDonnell, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas and Mr. Mark Todd.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION (AIRPORT NOISE AND POLLUTION)

Mr. David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 48].

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

REGULATIONS UNDER SCHEDULE 2 TO THE 1983 ACT

'. (1) The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make by regulations under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act as amended by section 9 of this Act and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions.
(2) No regulations making provisions under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act shall be made by the Secretary of State until three months have elapsed from the date of the publication of the draft provisions referred to in subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Greenway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I remind hon. Members, out of courtesy, of my interest in the Institute of Sales Promotion? The institute has no particular interest in the Bill, but I would not want any hon. Member to think that I had been in any way discourteous, even though aspects of this matter affect marketing in a way quite separate from my own interest.
As recently as last Thursday, a Committee of the whole House discussed in some detail the vexed issue of the inclusion of an opt-out box on electoral registration forms: how that would be achieved; how voters would be made aware of the effect of ticking such a box by a leaflet explaining what that would mean and, more important, of the availability of a full and an edited register to various organisations for various purposes, including uses that could best be described as commercial. We had a fruitful and constructive debate. Some progress was made and the Under-Secretary kindly informed us that he was persuaded of the case for including credit referencing as one of the legitimate purposes for which the full register should be available.
Less than a week—a brief period—has elapsed, but I make no criticism because that is the way in which our proceedings sometimes work, and given the pressures of business, one understands why. Nevertheless, we felt that it was pertinent and proper to revisit the issue on Report to test some things further with the Minister and—more to the point, for reasons that I shall explain—to include something further in the Bill.
As I have said, the Bill provides for the commercial sale of both the full and edited registers. Thanks to amendment No. 21, to which the Minister kindly agreed, there is a clear requirement to explain to voters on both registers the consequences of ticking any opt-out box. However, the Bill does not clarify or indicate in any way which organisations will and will not have access to either register—or, indeed, for what purposes they will have such access on payment of whatever fees and under whatever licensing arrangements are to be enshrined in regulations, none of which is in the Bill.
I should make it abundantly clear that, in moving the new clause, the Opposition are in no way suggesting that we are not prepared to take on trust the Minister's commitment to


further consultation, which is welcome. We entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is willing to consult, and will continue to consult. Our concerns are different: several very important questions remain to be answered.
First, ideally, consultation before the Report stage should have been more extensive and comprehensive. The working party on electoral reform, whose report the Government are seeking to implement, was published, following the recommendations in July, only in late October. Meaningful consultation on the effects and implications for many commercial organisations and our constituents took place only after the Government signalled their intention to have an opt-out box and published the Bill. The Minister's promise to consult, which we take at face value—it is entirely right—implies clear acknowledgement that consultation thus far has been less than adequate to resolve all the issues. This is a complex matter and such issues will take some time to resolve.
Secondly, we must ask whether the Minister's mind is fully made up on the question of access and use for commercial interests. Has he decided which organisations or types of organisation may have access to the full register, and for what purpose?
The Minister's response in letters and replies to some of my questions in Committee last week is not completely clear. In a letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, Mr. Colin Lloyd, on 12 January— I pointed this out in an intervention on him in Committee—the Minister said:
The full version will only be made available for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime prevention and in connection with applications for credit.
However, in direct response to my question on whether the letter was the final, definitive statement on who will have access to the register, he said:
we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account.
He went on to say:
It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry.
5.15 pm
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or his officials had a chance to edit whatever he said or meant to say, but his statement is ambiguous. One interpretation is that the industry will not be allowed the full register, and another is that it will be allowed the full register but that that register will not be available for all kinds of commercial uses. So, there is a doubt.
Later in last week's proceedings in Committee, however, the Minister appeared to reaffirm the point made in his letter when he said:
The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and fraud protection checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 460–3.].
That appears unambiguous.
Only two conclusions can be drawn from the Minister's responses: either he has made up his mind, in which case we must wonder what the promised consultation is for, or he remains open to change and further argument. Has he signed off his policy and come to a final position on the use to which the full register will be put for commercial

purposes, so that further consultation will not change his mind? If that were the case, such consultation would be pointless, except to allow—this is what he may have meant—for continuing discussion on the use of the edited register, the leaflet and the fee and licensing arrangements for which the regulations will provide. All those things are extremely important, but none of the consultation would address the central issue of whether the full register should be commercially available to interests other than the four that he set out in his letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association.
If that is not so, might the Minister still be persuaded to widen the scope of the full register's use? We rather hope so, as do many commercial interests in both direct marketing and other organisations—including, still, many financial institutions.
Given that the Bill has reached such an advanced stage, the position is unsatisfactory. In agreeing Third Reading, we must consider whether the Bill is satisfactory—and whatever the Minister's reply, my comments suggest that it is not. If policy is settled, why are the provisions not more explicit? Alternatively, why do we not have draft regulations to consider?
In the Standing Committee considering the Freedom of Information Bill, we have been discussing constructively the fact that much of that legislation will be enacted through regulations. The Minister has confirmed the advanced state of drafting of those regulations, for which I commend him. Indeed, as he knows, in Standing Committee B yesterday, I expressed some surprise that the process was so advanced. That only fuels my argument that if the policy is settled we should have had the opportunity to consider draft regulations in conjunction with Third Reading.
We can only conclude that this Bill has been rushed. We said that on Second Reading, as recently as 30 November. To be charitable, we understand the urgency with which the Government want to hold trials of different ways of conducting elections and their desire to be ready by the spring. We understand that that was the purpose of the working party and we appreciate the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose interest in the Bill we commend—we are glad to see him here—has put in a great deal of work.
We also understand the Government's desire for consensus, but my central point on the opt-out box is that the issue is in no way ready for Parliament to approve. Even if the rest of the Bill is satisfactory—and we have other concerns that we will raise later—clause 9, in our judgment, is not. That is why we have begun our debate on Report with this issue.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend was taking me with him until he said that he understood the reason for the urgency and seemed to offer his support for it. For the life of me, I cannot see what is urgent about this. I suggest the opposite: there can never be anything urgent about making radical, experimental changes to electoral law. I hope that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that he endorsed any spurious urgency that the Government have attached to the measure.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend puts me in some difficulty, so I will pour myself a glass of water and pause for thought.

Mr. David Maclean: Whisky, John.

Mr. Greenway: Alcoholic beverages are reserved for the Chancellor, I think, and his day is coming soon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must understand that our party, to which we are absolutely committed, had a representative on a working party that made recommendations about changes in electoral arrangements. We have considered whether it is sensible to accept the recommendation that there should be pilot schemes in respect of different ways of voting, on different days and with different procedures. [Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. Friend is listening, because what I have to say is important to him, given his constituency.
The Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows for changes in voting in the Greater London Assembly elections. Parliament has already approved that. If this Bill is enacted, it will allow similar experiments to take place in other parts of the country. I do not happen to have local elections in my constituency this spring, but many others do.
I do not want my right hon. Friend to think that we do not have concerns about other elements of the Bill. The fact that we have tabled amendments on issues such as the local connection declaration—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be tempted away from the new clause. Perhaps he can return to it.

Mr. Greenway: I was about to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was simply going to say that we have concerns about other aspects of the Bill and have tabled amendments accordingly, and I am sure that hon. Members will seek to catch your eye to express their views on them.
We have tabled the new clause because we believe that the opt-out box provision is the most unsatisfactory part of the Bill, and that it has nothing to do with the main thrust of the recommendations on the introduction of rolling registers or changes in the conduct of elections, which is what the working party was really about.
We have all been sent on a wild goose chase that has nothing to do with the central requirement of the working party to examine our electoral procedures. Had the provision been put in any other Bill, it would not have been rushed as it has been; there would have been much more time for consultation with industry; and we would have had a much more settled position for Parliament to consider on Report and Third Reading than is the case tonight.

Mr. David Wilshire: I want to add to the interesting comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend is keen to co-operate, but just because some of us do not approve of the way in which the elections for the mayor of London are to be conducted, there is no reason why we should have two lots of elections carried out in the

wrong way. An equivalent argument is that, if I beat my wife, that is no reason for my Front-Bench colleague to beat his.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) responds, he should be aware that that intervention, too, was well wide of the new clause. I would be grateful if he would deal with that.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would simply remind my hon. Friend that there was an experiment on proportional representation in elections last June in which the Government got a bloody nose, as a result of which their excitement over, and enthusiasm for, PR has been greatly diminished. I ask my hon. Friend not to anticipate the outcome of the pilots, which may not be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I will do so increasingly firmly unless he returns to the new clause.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We think that clause 9 is not satisfactory, but the provisions are not central to what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. But for the urgency of the provisions, it is doubtful whether the Minister would be seeking approval for the clause, given the uncertain outcome of so many key interests of importance to our constituents. He has already acknowledged—at column 458 on Thursday—that the House should debate the matter again.
The Minister also says that he wants further consultation, and we do not doubt his word, but we think that it is not unreasonable in all the circumstances to reflect the incomplete nature of clause 9 by including in the Bill both the case for, and a commitment to, further meaningful consultation. That, in a nutshell, is what new clause 1 would do. We also want adequate time to be provided for these matters to be considered—and for representations to be made by those affected, both in industry and as individuals—before Parliament is asked to approve the regulations giving effect to the final outcome of those consultations.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend confirm what is not in the new clause but may be implicit in his thinking behind it—namely, that the minimum three-month period would apply only to periods during which Parliament was sitting? Secondly—and, I think, importantly—in view of Lord Falkland's wise adage that that which it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change, does he agree that the consultation that he seeks through new clause 1 should be wide, detailed, academic and, preferably, protracted?

Mr. Greenway: Even on his birthday, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is razor sharp. I am sure that we wish him many happy returns. We are all the better for having him here. He makes his own point extremely well, but I want to reflect a little further on what he said. Part of the problem is that the consultations often take place over four or five weeks during the holiday period. I am not entirely sure that Parliament needs to be sitting when consultations take place with industry, as we have a lengthy recess in the summer and autumn.
In drafting the new clause, we initially thought that the consultation period might be six months, but that would be unprecedented. Three months is normal for draft regulations and arrangements to be consulted on with interested parties. Three months would give ample time to bring the matter to the attention of even those hon. Members who take the longest holidays during the recess—this does not apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who attends to all his duties with considerable care—and would allow for proper consultation.
5.30 pm
Before concluding, let me draw the attention of the House to three other issues related to this matter that remain outstanding from Thursday's debate. First, I ask the Minister again to consider the use of the full register for debt recovery. We understand that the effect of what the hon. Gentleman has thus far agreed is that credit referencing agencies will have access to the full register to assist them in advising financial institutions on whether to grant credit. That is an important agreement because it in part tackles the concerns of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the risk and danger of social exclusion that would arise from the opt-out box and the creation of an edited register. It seems extraordinary that the Minister can conclude that the use of the full register for such credit referencing would be legitimate while its use to assist with debt recovery would not. I want the hon. Gentleman to revisit that issue in his reply.
Secondly, I asked the Minister what research his Department had undertaken into the use of the raw data in the electoral register as the sole source of names and addresses for sending unsolicited mail. He says that such mail is the main source of complaint to electoral registration offices—I think that the working party made some comment to that effect. Our understanding is that the data on the electoral register are seldom used in such a way—they are seldom the only source of names and addresses of persons to whom literature may be sent. They are more widely used as a source to verify data obtained by some other means. It follows that if the register is not to be available in any way to the direct marketing industry and those commercial organisations, they will not be able to verify and up-date their data. The consequence will be that the volume of junk mail will rise.
If electoral registration officers are already receiving complaints about the volume of unsolicited mail because people perceive that the senders obtained their names and addresses from the register—we think that that is a false perception, but it is none the less a valid one—the Minister must consider what will happen if the amount of junk mail increases. The complaints will rise and the position will get worse.
Also, if the letter to Colin Lloyd, the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, is a settled policy, can the Minister tell us why no new regulatory impact assessment has been carried out? There has been no such assessment of those aspects of the provisions.
Thirdly, and finally, the Minister said that direct marketing firms would not have access to the full register, as that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive. How can the directive allow credit referencing, but not screening for unsolicited mail, or indeed, use of the register by charities? Also, it appears

that only Home Office officials and the Data Protection Registrar gave evidence to the working party on data protection. Before the Minister closes his mind on the subject, would he be willing to receive a paper from the Direct Marketing Association and the CBI as they have a contrary view?
I have looked in detail at the submission of the Data Protection Registrar to the working party, and it is hardly conclusive. On the contrary, the registrar's advice appears to confirm that, provided that voters are advised of the fact, their data could be used for other purposes. In her submission, the registrar states:
Even if such a case can be made in relation to some purposes individuals should still have a choice over the sale of their data for other purposes particularly the compilation of direct marketing lists".
Far from the registrar confirming that direct marketing use of the full register was incompatible with the data protection directive, which is enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1998, in the summary of her advice to the working party, she clearly sets out the circumstances in which it would be compatible. That is another reason for us to conclude that much of this provision has not been thought through.
I do not want to detain the House further, and must reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not intend to speak at length. I have taken interruptions that have led us to stray from the key point of the new clause. I hope that what I have said demonstrates that there are far too many unresolved issues in relation to clause 9 for the House to be satisfied with how matters stand. Yes, let there be consultation—we welcome the Minister's comments on that and I suspect he will further reassure us later on his willingness to consult—but Parliament must continue to have a role. New clause 1 makes that role and our interest in and attention to the matter more likely than if we leave the Bill as it stands. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that you will advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not the occasion for me to tell the House that the fact that a colleague of mine apparently served on some obscure working party commits me in any way. I am sure that you would advise me that Third Reading would be the time for me to tell the House why I feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me. Those points will come later and I cannot wait for Third Reading to make them. I hope that it will not be too long before we reach Third Reading because I am dying to make that speech.
This is the occasion for us to concentrate our thoughts narrowly on clause 9 and the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that, according to the Government, he seems to have been committed to the measure by a member of the Conservative party. The Ulster Unionist party was not committed to it by anyone because we were


not represented on the working party. Furthermore, I should think that we are the party in the House that knows most about fraud.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that he could not wait for Third Reading. I am afraid that he will have to do so.

Mr. Forth: As ever, you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I make it clear from the start that I welcome the new clause. It gives me pleasure to say that I welcome it—

Mr. Bercow: Unalloyed pleasure.

Mr. Forth: Certainly. In his usual analytical but forceful way, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has illustrated all too well the weakness that regrettably still exists in clause 9. He has done us a great service in that respect, because doing so usefully puts in context the sense of urgency that he inexplicably introduced into the proceedings. It gives us the occasion to pause and reconsider whether we are wise to allow clause 9 to proceed in its present form.
The new clause therefore gives us the opportunity to find out from the Minister, if we can, not only the answers to the many questions my hon. Friend rightly posed but whether it would be helpful to include new clauses for the reasons that he gave and one or two others that I could modestly add. The more I read clause 9, the more delphic I find it. That would be worrying enough in any Bill, but it is more worrying in a Bill proposing radical changes to our electoral procedures. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I will want to expatiate on why the Bill is unnecessary and dangerous. However, I will leave that until later.
In the meantime, I want to concentrate on clause 9 and try to get from the Minister a clearer idea of what its provisions mean. The clause is tantalisingly long, but almost equally opaque. It does not reveal—as it should—either the intention or the effect of the proposals. The House has already spent considerable time on Second Reading and in Committee speculating on why we are to have this bifurcated register, and to what purposes it might be put. The fact that we are still speculating illustrates the difficulties in which the House may find itself.
Clause 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is seeking to strengthen with the new clause, says that "provisions" should be made. That is a generous but vague word, which allows any amount of latitude to the Secretary of State of the day. The clause states that provisions will be made
specifying a form of words".
That means that almost anything can be written into the provisions. It goes on to state that the provisions specifying the form of words will explain to those registered or applying to be registered
the purposes for which the edited register might be used".
If that is not a circular argument, I do not know what is.
The form of words in the Bill is completely without meaning or substance. The Bill says that something will happen in the future which will give rise to an explanation

of the purposes of something that we do not yet understand. That is what the House is being asked to accept in this important Bill, and it is not good enough.
The clause goes on, with impudence of the highest order, to say that the provisions will ascertain what is requested by or on behalf of such persons. We have the ultimate in legislative nonsense, with the Bill using a form of words which tells us nothing and leads us nowhere.

Mr. Bercow: I endorse my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the new clause. Is not it absolutely typical that the clause that the Government are defending has been drawn up by a Department which, according to my immediate calculation, contains four Ministers—the Home Secretary, two Ministers of State and an Under-Secretary—who are lawyers?

Mr. Forth: That frightening thought may go some way to explaining our difficulties. However, our job on Report is to get ourselves out of those difficulties, and recognising them is an important first step. My hon. Friend, who will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale's excellent introduction, may not have been reassured to be told that this nonsense is the outcome of a working party which produced a consensus and led to the urgency with which the Bill is being rushed through the House today.
5.45 pm
All of these words—"working parties", "consensus" and the spurious "urgency"—would make me suspicious about a Bill on any subject. However, this is where the new clause may come to our rescue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was persuasive, but it will take some considerable effort by the Minister to persuade me to support the Bill, although I do support the new clause. The doubts about the Bill, and its flaws, are evident.
The advantage of the new clause is that before we are led astray by the looseness of the drafting of the Bill—and before the peculiar provisions alluded to in clause 9 lead to a miasma of inexplicable verbiage—we will be rescued, in part, by the draft to be published and by the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, in his sagacity, has allowed for that process.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a draft of the regulations before us would be a considerable improvement on what we have now, which is nothing?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. The irony is that the Government, who have told us so much about the virtues of pre-legislative activity and the strengthening of legislation by being open, have produced the antithesis of that—unless my hon. Friend believes that the working party, of which one of our colleagues was a member, did all the pre-legislative work.

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Forth: That reassures me. We have a degree of reassurance with the safety net in the new clause, which may help us to correct a fundamental weakness in clause 9.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have not taken a close interest in the progress of the Bill,


but it so happens that the last time I attended such a debate, the House was discussing this very clause. I have never understood how many people will have the right to have the register, unrestricted. If that number is more than three, any suggestion of limiting its use is pie in the sky.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever, and he may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asking a similar question. The fact that we still have to pose such a fundamental question illustrates the extent to which we have got ourselves into difficulties with the Bill. Notwithstanding the working party and the consensus—I am beginning to wonder how real that consensus was—the Minister has failed to answer that fundamental question. That leads me to the conclusion that unless we get a satisfactory answer, the House may not want the Bill to proceed and should find a way to send it back for further consideration.
I shall encapsulate my views by saying that I believe that the fundamental weaknesses and inadequacies of clause 9 can be partially corrected by new clause 1. On that basis, I am prepared to support the new clause, although I await the Minister's comments. I remain to be convinced of the necessity for, or viability and benefit of, the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: I was prompted to take an interest in clause 9 and new clause 1 because of the Minister's comments in the debate last week. I do not blame the Minister personally because he has to carry the departmental brief, and the Government as a whole are responsible for the extreme haste with which clause 9 was produced despite their not having thought through the consequences. The Minister answered concerns raised by Labour Members about direct marketing and credit checking. He said:
We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved.
We are about to reach Third Reading of an important Bill that deals with the registration of electors, and the House should not be faced with such a clause as clause 9 which is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, completely inexplicable. It is so ambiguous that it could mean anything that any Minister wants it to mean, depending on what sort of regulations he wishes to produce or what sort of mood he is in.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): My right hon. Friend has mentioned an issue of grave concern to me. He will be aware that I have tabled several written questions exploring concerns about the use that might be made by the credit industry of the information made available under the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I are both officers of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, and I find it extraordinary, in these days of pre-legislative scrutiny, that the Government are putting proposals before the House when they have not yet finished their consultations on the safeguards for the public.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, and the humbug we get from the Government on that point is amazing. I sat on a Committee considering the Immigration and

Asylum Act 1999, which was also the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the same Minister also served on the Committee. We heard from him a daily mantra of how wonderful the Government were for having conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny and that a range of complex issues had been discussed in advance. We are now considering a complex issue that will affect everyone on the electoral register, as well as all the direct marketing agencies, the banks and credit checking agencies and Members of Parliament, but the Government do not have a clue about the regulations they will draw up.
It gets worse. In the previous debate, the Minister was pressed on the subject of regulations and said:
Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations.
He later continued:
I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them." —[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 461–621.]
That is a new doctrine from new Labour now it is in government. The attitude is, "We are not going to consult about the regulations in advance. We are going to pass them and if you don't like them, you can complain about them and we may change them later." If Ministers in the previous Government had tried that on, the Labour Opposition would have demanded emergency statements PDQ. It is an outrageous thing for a Minister to say. We know how difficult it is to change regulations after the event.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer.

Mr. Bermingham: I declare that interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many regulations have been sprung on the House at the last minute in the past 10 or 15 years, and it was only when objections were raised to them that changes were made? What has changed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) answers that point, I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the timetable surrounding the Bill. I ask Members now to deal with the contents of new clause 1.

Mr. Maclean: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have covered the background to clause 9 and I shall now address the content—or what I believe should be the content—of the regulations.
I support new clause 1 because it attempts to make the diabolically vague clause 9 slightly better. New clause 1 would provide that
The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make … and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions.
We heard from Labour Members in earlier debates about their concerns about the effect on direct marketing organisations. Denouncing junk mail is a popular pastime,


but some junk mail we like and some we dislike. I have no particular objection to junk mail from a direct marketing organisation that may have obtained my name from the electoral register. If I do not like the wine on offer from Bordeaux Direct, I do not have to buy it and I can put the leaflet in the bin. If I do not want the thermal slippers from Kaleidoscope, I do not have to buy them. However, I am forced to deal with the junk mail I get from Members of Parliament and national lobby groups trying to blackmail me into supporting one cause or another in the House. I wish I could remove myself from that list.
I suspect that all the 35 million people on the electoral register have different views about the junk mail that they would not like to receive. However, I do not know how many organisations would consider it vital to have access to the full register but would be prohibited from doing so under the Bill. If those organisations were to be consulted before the regulations were drafted, the Government would have a chance to get them right. That is not a political point, because if any Government planned to make regulations that introduced two types of register—one with all the names on and one without some names—I know from my Home Office experience that a dozen organisations could stake a legitimate claim to one version of the list and another dozen would feel as strongly that the first lot should not get that version.
6 pm
In addition, what about the charities, some of which have been mentioned? I and other hon. Members received some very worrying correspondence from St. Dunstan's, the marvellous charity that helps people blinded, or partially blinded, as a result of military service. Every year that organisation, like other charities, sends out about 3 million letters and circulars to targeted people. Some would call that junk mail. I do not know where the mailing list comes from, or whether the charity buys it, or from whom. However, I think that the electoral register plays a key role as no charity would want to spend a fortune on the expensive lists available commercially.
I made a special trip to talk to the charity's organisers. Their sense that they were not getting proper support from the Government or the national lottery is not relevant to the debate, but they emphasised that their charity needed mailing lists for the millions of letters sent out. There are many other charities, of course.
Will the Minister say what position charities involved in direct mail operations will occupy in the future? What effect will the Bill have on other, commercial direct operations?

Mr. James Gray: I am struck by what my right hon. Friend has said about charities. Is he not worried that the Bill will prevent charities from targeting their fund-raising activities on middle-class or prosperous households, with the result that they will get less than at present?

Mr. Maclean: I agree that that is a worry. Charities use the electoral register, Yellow Pages, postcode data and other data that they buy from other organisations. Target markets depend on what they want to sell or the funding that they want to raise: their target audience need not be

middle class but could be any social group. The Bill could prohibit that activity. The new clause would at least give charities a chance to bring that difficulty to the Government's attention.
I have never won the Reader's Digest prize draw but I do not mind putting that magazine's circular in the bin, yet that advertising is precisely what the Government seem to want to stop. If that is their prejudice, so be it, but clause 9 and the Government's reluctance to consult about the regulations mean that other, legitimate operations—such as charities—would suffer.

Mr. Rowe: If hundreds of people are entitled to have access to the unrestricted register, is not it almost certain that some of them will engage in illegal practices? The demand for the register is great, and its availability vast. Will we not be creating a jungle of potential crime?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend prompts me to bring forward the point with which I intended to conclude my contribution. In my little computer case in my office I have a compact disc entitled "Info UK". It contains more than 49 million names and addresses.

Mr. Forth: Gosh.

Mr. Maclean: Some telephone contact numbers are also included, although I do not use them. I acquired the CD—for about £49.50—because I was told that it existed. I did not believe that it could contain so many names and addresses, but it does. I could enter the name of almost any hon. Member, and acquire the relevant address.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman have so much time to waste that he can check 49 million names?

Mr. Forth: He will read them out in a moment.

Mr. Maclean: I shall not go down that route, but there are various ways to waste time. Some would say that it is more interesting to read 49 million names and addresses than to read the speeches or court case reports of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is true that there are many different ways of wasting time, and the right hon. Gentleman is verging on one.

Mr. Maclean: That is why I shall not be tempted out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The CD that I have described is already in wide circulation and is constantly updated. A different worry stems from the forthcoming CD containing aerial photographs of every house in the country. When the two discs are amalgamated, there could be serious security breaches involving senior police and military officers, politicians and others.
A large industry exists with access to the electoral register, but that comprises only a small part of a comprehensive database that can be easily searched and which is easily available. I suspect that most of the information on that database is bought from other companies. Every time we subscribe to an organisation or a Christmas catalogue, we have to tick a box to prevent our names being passed on to other companies.
Huge resources are devoted to the compilation of information. All the telephone directories and full lists of internet and e-mail addresses are available on computer. The Government can try to restrict access to the full register as much as they like, but the one copy that may be made available to a credit card checking company may well be sufficient to act as authentication for the almost total picture already compiled about the 56 million people in the country.
Hypothetically, we could abolish the electoral register completely. However, I suspect that it would remain possible to garner enough information from telephone directories, the internet and other sources to provide a pretty accurate register.

Mr. Forth: I just want to capture the moment and ask whether my right hon. Friend considers that the sources to which he has referred could, in an ironic sort of way, serve as an invaluable source of cross-checking and verification of the electoral register? Might not the downside of what he has suggested become an advantage? That matter is covered by a later amendment, but I wanted to ask the question as my right hon. Friend was on the topic.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, and one can use the House of Commons address checker facility to check whether a letter comes from a constituent. That facility can determine on which side of a constituency boundary an address may lie. Hon. Members can use the House of Commons system for that, and I am sure that outsiders can tap into it too. A later amendment would make it possible for electoral registration officers to check on commercial systems to verify whether the names supplied to them are legitimate and valid.
Because of the intervention of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, the Minister may have thought my point about the huge amount of information that there is on compact disc a cause for humour. It is not—it is a cause for concern. It is therefore vital that the Government consult before they draw up the regulations.
I was alerted to Info UK by the police service. The police were legitimately concerned that, having taken vigorous steps to keep the names of certain officers off the electoral register for security purposes, their names were still on a CD that has sold about 1.5 million copies in the United Kingdom. The Government should consult the police service and other organisations with an interest in these matters, such as charities and direct marketing firms. I am absolutely certain that in a minefield such as this, with the best will in the world, no Government and no Minister can get it right in advance.
The Minister may live to regret saying last week that the Government will make the regulations governing access first, and that, once they were in place, they would wait for complaints on where they had got them wrong, and might then be minded to change them. That approach will cause enormous difficulty.
The new clause may be imperfectly drafted, but at least it will give the Government a chance to amend the regulations before they bring them before the House. I challenge the Minister: when, in his two years in the Home Office, has he prepared draft regulations that have not needed amending because someone spotted something wrong and suggested improvements? That is not a

weakness, nor a fault. There is nothing wrong in preparing regulations with the help of the best lawyers that the Home Office can get its hands on, consulting on those regulations and then discovering a flaw or an omission. Pre-legislative scrutiny, consultation and trusting the people are supposed to be new Labour strengths, but the Minister is saying that he will not do that.
If the Government reject the new clause, it will be a sign that they believe they know best. They will keep the provisions to themselves and rush them through quickly, and to blazes with those outside who may suffer. I do not think that that is the Minister's attitude. I am sorry that he is locked into this box; it has no doubt been forced on him by his colleagues and by the agreement that he reached in an alleged committee in Cabinet. We can also blame the working party. I hope that he can wangle out of it tonight by accepting the new clause.

Mr. Bermingham: I hope to be but brief. I think that there is some sense in the new clause. I know that the Government may not agree with me, but sometimes it pays to stand back, to look and to think.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) did not think me facetious when I asked whether he had checked that there were 49 million names. I could not for a moment understand who the heck would want 49 million names on a compact disc. When I hear that 1.5 million have been sold, and that a CD will be issued showing an aerial photograph of everyone's house, I begin to wonder about the words "privacy" and "personal privacy", and it causes me some concern.
I came in here and, as I have done for years, glanced at the new clause. I listened to the comments and, when I heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) giving forth—no pun intended—I thought, "Here we go again. What's this load of rubbish?" Then I looked at the new clause again, and I thought very carefully. When in opposition, I said time and again about regulations, "If only people would stand back and think, we might cut down the number of challenges in the courts." That I have said not once but a thousand times in this House.
The regulations on the electoral register may not be perfect. It would be so nice to get them right, which is why I think that the new clause has some merit. It may need redrafting, but the thought behind it is not hostile. The new clause would effectively provide that, when the provisions have been drafted, they should be put out to consultation with a view to reaching agreement. It is better to agree something by consensus than to vote it through against opposition.
The second half of the new clause is also sensible. How many times do we get a raft of regulations and orders in July that most of us do not read? Then, some time in the fall, a constituent or someone connected with us says, "Did you see that regulation? What about X?"

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that his support for the new clause is warmly appreciated by Conservative Members, even though it has already earned the obvious wrath and probably the undying enmity of the representative of the Patronage Secretary—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). Will the hon. Member for St. Helens,


South (Mr. Bermingham) say, on the strength of what he has already told us, whether he has a preferred length of consultation and a preferred format?

Mr. Bermingham: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) —my Whip—will not exercise his wrath on me. He, like me, is a civilised and dignified man; if we disagree, we will disagree head to head, as I would with my son. I have no fear in saying what I think, and I can now answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
The Government should consult as widely as possible, and the period of that consultation should be realistic—a matter of months, not weeks or days. Indeed, if I may return to the point that I was making before the hon. Gentleman's intervention—I did not see the purpose of the intervention, but that does not matter—if the publication or the draft is published at the beginning of the summer, for example, there should be a realistic time for consultation. The period allowed for consultation should be parliamentary time, not calendar time. I have in the past railed and ranted against the previous Government for publishing in July draft proposals that had a closing date when Parliament was not sitting. That seems counter-productive. The object of the exercise when consulting is to consult.
If one is to be realistic, one consults in a way that enables those with whom one wishes to consult—or, if it is the public, to invite ideas—to have a realistic and practical opportunity to make their views known. Those views may or may not be of value—one does not know before one asks.
There may be considerable value in the new clause, just as there was in another Opposition amendment that I mentioned the other week—the one originally tabled in December. I am not sure about the wording or the drafting, but it has merit. It should be considered, and I hope that the Government will do so.

Mr. Wilshire: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that all hon. Members listened to the key reason that he gave for supporting new clause 1. I believe that it is of the utmost significance when a barrister tells the House that he supports a proposal because it will mean less work for the courts. A barrister advancing the argument of less work for his profession means that his motives are of the purest. It means that the House is being given advice that, whatever our political party, we would be foolish to reject.

Mr. Greenway: It is free advice.

Mr. Wilshire: The advice may be free—time will tell.
It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I listened with much interest to his various definitions of junk mail, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that he does not extend his definition to my pet hate in the letter box—the invoice and the bill. On reflection, he might

agree that they were dispensable. Indeed, perhaps we could legislate against sending bills to Members of Parliament.
It is always enjoyable to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This evening, he treated the House to a speech of great brevity and clarity, with the result that I was completely confused. The point of the new clause is to deal with confusion. My right hon. Friend's clarity made it clear that we cannot allow the Bill to proceed in its current form because it will confuse all those who try to tackle the matter.
I have no difficulty in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I shall willingly vote for new clause 1, should he ask me to do so. As I said earlier, I have reservations about the haste with which the Bill has been introduced—that is one of the reasons for my intervention in the debate—but I wonder whether the new clause goes far enough.
However, my colleagues and I are grateful to the Government for accepting the amendment that was tabled in Committee. In opposition, one rapidly learns to be thankful for small mercies, so I am more than willing to thank the Government for that especially small mercy. The amendment makes a bad Bill slightly less bad—I would go no further than that. However, even that is something. We should not be grudging in our thanks to the Minister. Having heard those words of thanks, I hope that he will accept the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South and will thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new clause.
I am concerned about some of the detail in the new clause. Under subsection (1), it states:
The Secretary of State shall publish in draft".
I am worried about the words "shall publish". I am all in favour of the Secretary of State publishing draft provisions, but I should have preferred the new clause to specify that the Government should place them before Parliament. If the words are merely "shall publish", the Government will probably give a press briefing, which parliamentarians will not attend. If they do not do that, they will organise a press release and will slip the measure out late at night, when we shall not have an opportunity to discuss it as soon as it appears. Alternatively, to judge by past experience, they will leak it. They will claim that to be publication.
We need a new clause and a new Bill that provides for such provisions to be placed before Parliament. If we cannot have that, I am most willing to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. If the Minister does not accept my comments and the Bill goes to another place, I hope that he will try to strengthen the new clause and accept it.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—

Mr. Gray: The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is responsible for the Bill, is leaving the Chamber. He told me, from a sedentary position, that he did not have time to listen to the debate. Is that not worrying?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the Minister responsible for the Bill, and I am in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is just a statement of the position.

Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful that the Minister is in the Chamber. I assume that, when the Under-Secretary left the Chamber, it was to take instructions from Mr. Campbell as to whether he should accept—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to new clause 1.

Mr. Wilshire: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When the Minister replies to my point about the distinction between placing before Parliament and publishing, will he tell us which draft publications he has in mind? Surely, we cannot have reached this stage of the Bill's progress without the Government having at least the beginnings of some ideas. Will the Minister throw some light on the matter? When the time comes to vote on the measure, that will guide us as to whether we need it.
My second concern relates to the words—also under subsection (1)—
shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him".
I am not happy to leave it to a Minister to decide what "appears to him" to be correct, when we are dealing with the representation of the people. That is at the heart of our democracy. The new clause would be improved if the words were "as appears to Parliament". It is a parliamentary matter, and cannot safely be left to the Executive. Throughout the world, Executives have a nasty habit of playing fast and loose with democracy if they get half a chance. Parliament is the safeguard of our democracy. It should be for Parliament, not for Ministers, to decide whom it appears appropriate to consult at a given moment.

Mr. Bermingham: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been a list of the great and the good—the bodies to be consulted? That list rolls on from Government to Government. I cannot understand why he has such difficulty with the wording of that part of the new clause—it is the same format that has always been used.

Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I pointed out that, just because something has been done wrong for 100 years, there is no reason to continue to do it wrong. At least I am being consistent, because I am making the same points about the defence of the rights of Parliament that I made when we were in government. In dealing with matters that are at the heart of representative democracy, I have always believed that it should be for Parliament and not for the Executive to make the decisions. I suggest that the measure is one such matter.
I have some concerns about subsection (2) of the new clause, which includes the words
until three months have elapsed".

Reference has already been made to that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will not mind my saying that I should have preferred the words to be "six months".
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is correct: the three-month period makes it possible that the consultation process could take place when the House is not sitting. That cannot be right. It doubly reinforces my point about representative democracy. The provision is one that must come before the House, yet it could be dealt with during our absence.
There are several other considerations. During the summer, the people who are consulted might find it difficult to hold proper consultations. I assume that the Minister proposes to list a range of representative organisations who will be consulted. They will have to ask the advice of their members before responding. If an organisation with a large number of members—such as some of those in the direct marketing profession—has to consult those members during three months in the summer, it might not be able to undertake realistic and effective consultations, so as to give the Government the advice that is needed, during that period.
6.30 pm
It is also the case, as I have observed and I am sure that the House has observed during the past few weeks, that the United Kingdom comes perilously close to a standstill for an ever-longer period over the Christmas break. If the three-month consultation period were to include the run-up to Christmas, Christmas, the gap between Christmas and the new year, the new year and the hangover after the new year, an awful length of time within that three-month period could well be used up, and again we would not be getting the advice that we so urgently need.
Another aspect of the new clause that causes me slight concern is that although, admirably, it calls for much more clarity in the consultation process, it does not address what I consider to be a further issue of great importance—the need to secure parliamentary approval for the guidelines and regulations after consultation has taken place. I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure us that he will take on board the concept of returning to Parliament and allowing us the final say on the suitability of the entire consultation process.
I hope that the Government listened to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, even if they did not listen with any great care and attention to what Opposition Members said, because I am convinced that the new clause strengthens the Bill and meets the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am amazed that it takes an Opposition amendment to address such a concern.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause appears perfectly worthy, and worthy of Government support. I hope that the Government will be positive. I only add one PS. It comes to something when the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mistakes the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The new clause was moved with characteristic vigour by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but I cannot invite the House to support it as it does not add sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion.
As the House is aware, we are carefully considering what form any regulations governing access to the full electoral register should take. We are examining carefully the representations that have been made to us, and my officials are holding regular meetings with representatives of the credit and finance industries to discuss those matters. Only two days ago they had a very helpful meeting with them. We have also received advice from the Data Protection Registrar. Obviously, we need to strike a balance between meeting privacy and data protection concerns and ensuring that we do not unduly harm the industries that now make use of the electoral register. We believe that we can strike that balance, and that the regulations that we draft will achieve that. Any such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, so I can tell the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that Parliament will have a full opportunity to debate them. I can also repeat a previous commitment: that the regulations will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend begins to reassure me, but I do not understand why the regulations cannot be published in draft, to allow representatives not only of the regulatory industries and the financial industries but of other bodies to comment on the proposals. Then, when the regulations come before the House for debate, they will at least have been seen by many other people who have been able to have an input, or offer advice on what will become the regulations drafted by the Department.

Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend had borne with me a little longer, he would have discovered that the regulations will be published in draft and consulted on.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we believe that the full register should be available to credit and finance companies for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications, and the Data Protection Registrar has confirmed that she would be happy with that. Such a step will ensure that those who opt out do not inadvertently suffer by finding it hard to obtain credit. Our discussions with the banking and finance industries are now concentrating on precisely how we would make such an arrangement work.
As I hope to show, there is no question of ill-thought-out regulations being slipped through. The regulations that emerge will be based on the outcome of full and proper consultation with the industries concerned, and I am sure that they will be properly scrutinised here and in another place.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I am anxious to make progress. We have a great deal of work before us today. There are many amendments further down the selection list on which I am sure hon. Members would like to make progress, so I am

us to accept further interventions. However, I am happy to accept an intervention on this occasion from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister; I hear his warnings. What he has just said is very welcome to all of us. We have obtained from him the huge concession that there will be proper consultation before the regulations are promulgated by his Department. Much as we welcome his conversion, what has changed since last Thursday when he made the opposite statement, as is recorded in Hansard?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure that anything has changed, nor that I made the opposite statement. We have always taken the view that, on this matter, we need properly to consult with the industry on regulations. I have maintained that view throughout, in letters to and meetings with various parts of the industry. We have never been in any doubt that the industry will be legitimately concerned with these matters and that we should ensure that we take on board their arguments.
The hon. Member for Ryedale asked whether we have a settled view on the direct marketing industry. We do have a settled view, but not a dogmatic view, about how we shall proceed. We are prepared to listen to representations from any organisation that may be prepared to make them and we shall happily consider them, but we shall need to be convinced by the strength of the argument. The Government have data protection and privacy obligations. The previous Government signed the data protection directive, with which we need to comply—I am sure that the hon Gentleman would want us to do so. It is our clear view that this legislation is necessary to comply with that.
The working party also consulted on all these issues. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not suggesting that we could not be taken on trust. Indeed, he said that he was satisfied that we were prepared to consult on these matters, and I am grateful to him for putting it in that way. He was worried that the consultation period may not have been very long because the full report of the working party came out in October, but I can tell him that the initial findings of the working party were known in July and that there was the opportunity to make representations, although I accept that it was over the summer period.
Some industries have been making representations and we have been continuing to listen to them. We do listen to the strength of the arguments. We have a settled view and a clear policy, but it is not dogmatic. The Direct Marketing Association and the Confederation of British Industry have sent us papers, and we shall continue to consider any representations that they are prepared to make.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the credit card industry and the finance industry could seek information from other sources—even the telephone directory. He is right. In fact, most other European countries have quite stringent restrictions. Many of them prohibit the selling on of an electoral register. In those countries, the credit card and the direct marketing industries find the other means that are available to them. They might have to create new industries to gather that information, and that might


benefit the economy by creating new business opportunities. However, the credit card and the finance industries will have the opportunity to move forward.
I wish to deal with the issue of debt recovery that was raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale. We have consulted the Data Protection Registrar closely and the view taken was that the use of the register for debt recovery would be contrary to the spirit of the data protection directive. She took a different view to that about discovering the initial identity of individuals to decide whether credit could be granted to them. We could, no doubt, have a legalistic argument about the distinctions, but the registrar is there to advise and we have listened carefully to the advice that we have been given.

Mr. Greenway: Will the Minister consider whether the explanatory leaflet given to householders would touch on the effect of ticking the opt-out box on debt recovery and on the use of the register for direct marketing purposes, so that existing data can be verified to restrict the amount of junk mail? Is his mind open to those ideas so that, when people tick the box, they know that they are granting consent for the data to be used for those purposes? That would get round the problem of the directive.

Mr. O'Brien: As I understand it—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—he is asking whether, when a person considers whether to tick the opt-out box, he will know that the issues of debt recovery and direct marketing are before him. I see no reason why, on the face of it, such information should not appear in the leaflet that we shall circulate. Whether the debt recovery industry wants such information in the leaflet is a matter for consultation, but, in principle, I have an open mind. I am quite happy to consult the industry.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked whether we would consult the police. I am happy to inform him that we are doing that. My officials had a meeting with the National Criminal Intelligence Service only yesterday. Full and proper consultations will take place.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked how we will proceed. My officials are already consulting the industries and, once the Bill is enacted, we will produce a draft. That will be put on the internet, it will be circulated among those who have signalled their interest, and we will listen to their concerns. I do not want to place a three-month limit on the consultation because that would raise all sorts of issues, but we shall talk to the industry about the time that it needs for reasonable consultation.
I have given hon. Members as much reassurance as I can that we shall consult as much as is reasonable in all the circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will withdraw his motion.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to the debate and for making pertinent points in support of my case that the House should receive greater reassurance about the implications of clause 9 and the forthcoming regulations. There should be consultation and proper time should be given to interested parties to reflect on the regulations. The House should then have the opportunity to debate and approve them.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that he did. His answer confirms that this has been an extremely worthwhile debate. I understand his point that

he does not think that the new clause adds sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion. That encourages me to try to do a little better next time to ensure that my new clauses are slightly more wide ranging.
6.45 pm
In effect, the Minister said that, although he has come to a settled view about direct marketing, it is not a dogmatic one. I interpret that to mean that his mind is not yet fully made up and that both his door and his mind are not closed to further representations. I intervened on the Minister because the more I study the Data Protection Registrar's concerns, the more I am convinced that the problems can be got round through the information that is given to people about the implications of ticking the opt-out box. As the Bill allows, the information should explain to them the effect that ticking the box would have on a number of issues.
All we can do in our debates is to provide the industry with the opportunity to discuss the issues further with the Minister. We have achieved that aim, but it is up to the industry to decide whether it is worth taking that opportunity. As I confirmed to the Minister the other day, the industry is perfectly prepared to pay the cost of the production of the leaflet, which would then be distributed at local authorities' expense when they make their electoral registration canvass.
I think that we have made significant progress in the last couple of hours—we have made considerably more than on Thursday. The Minister should expect the matters to be further scrutinised if and when the Bill goes to the other place. However, in the spirit of the Minister's positive response to our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 39 to 43.

Mr. Maclean: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with his customary wisdom in the previous debate, I reflected briefly that it was an unfortunate custom of the House that my right hon. Friend cannot properly be referred to as my right hon. and learned Friend. Not only does that form of address have a certain ring and cachet about it, it is absolutely appropriate and correct in view of the—to borrow his own phrase—sagacity of his previous contribution. My contribution will not be nearly as sagacious and it will be brief because I wish to reserve my energy for the Second Reading debates that will follow.
The amendments relate to different clauses of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 would amend clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6, but they would both do exactly the same thing. They would delete the three-month residency qualification for Northern Ireland.


Amendment No. 13 would delete lines in clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6(5) and remove the words:
Where a declaration of local connection is made for the purposes of registration in Northern Ireland, the declaration must state that the declarant has been in Northern Ireland during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration.
Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, but we have no such requirement for a special three-month residency qualification in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt it could be said that before the so-called peace settlement the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland meant that to avoid fraud—it would not be personation in this case—a three-month residency qualification was necessary. I am not sure what the justification is for that. Presumably, the aim was to check the bona fides of the applicant for electoral registration to ensure that citizens of the Irish Republic, a foreign country, were not popping up to Northern Ireland on registration day, staying in the Province overnight, and getting on to the register.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the differential should exist and that it should be debated on the very day that the Government have claimed that normalisation will be achieved by the implementation of the Patten report on the RUC?

Mr. Maclean: That is a rather sad coincidence.
I shall give the House an example that demonstrates the absurdity of maintaining that provision in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have a friend who is an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on attachment in this country. He is a United Kingdom citizen, born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving his country in the RUC. He has been working in this country for a few years and when he returns to Northern Ireland, if he has not maintained his place on the register, that British citizen, who pays taxes through the nose in this country, will have to live in the Province for at least three months before he can get on to the register in his own country and have a right to vote in British elections.
On the other hand, citizens from a foreign country—the Irish Republic—may pass through Great Britain and get on to the electoral register here. I am talking not about people who come here for a holiday or for the day, but people who are doing short-term work in this country. They may not be paying a penny of tax in the UK. They may not care a jot for this Parliament, this Government, this Opposition or any of our country's institutions. However, the fact that, due to an historical anomaly, we grant citizens of the Irish Republic the right to vote in British elections, those people will get on to the electoral register in Britain without having to spend three months here to gain a residency qualification
I think that I have got the facts correct: citizens of the Irish Republic passing through Great Britain get on to the register overnight, but UK citizens serving in Her Majesty's forces who return to their homes in Northern Ireland cannot get on to the register unless they have lived in the Province for three months and produced all the necessary documentation to prove that they are not frauds or foreigners.
I do not find that an absurdity; I find it an obscenity. It is outrageous that we have built-in conditions that disadvantage our citizens, particularly those who are most likely to be affected: members of Her Majesty's armed forces who come from Northern Ireland to serve in regiments outside Northern Ireland and who return to their own country to retire or on posting, and who for technical reasons may not have the right to vote. Of course, that disadvantage may affect hundreds of other civilians who are also doing worthwhile work.
If there was justification in the past, and there may have been, for the three-month Northern Ireland residency qualification, there is certainly no justification for allowing foreigners, such as citizens of the Irish Republic, to vote in British elections. However, that is another anomaly, which I shall leave undisturbed tonight. If there was justification in the past, what is the justification now when we are told that the peace process has resulted in fundamental change?
We are now to destroy the RUC itself. We are to allow two members of Sinn Fein-IRA—whom my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party call "unreconstructed terrorists"—to participate in the Government of Northern Ireland. Perhaps they are to have an office next to mine and £50,000 of allowances in a couple of weeks. Perhaps they are to have access to the whole of Parliament, to be called a party and to be given short money because they are now democratic. Perhaps they will be wandering in and out of the Cafeteria. If all that is to happen, it is surely a sign that we are in a radically different world from the one in which a three-month residency qualification was appropriate.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the forthcoming Disqualifications Bill in his important speech. Will he inquire whether the Minister will make available to us the Government's security knowledge of the two individuals whom we shall allow into the House next week? That would make very interesting reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would be pushing it if we moved on to that particular subject.

Mr. Maclean: Even I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recognise that that is not a subject that you want me to pursue tonight, although the hon. Gentleman's point is valid and needs to be explored in a future debate.
I described the situation as an obscenity. It will be even worse next Tuesday when another Bill is rushed through this House, because it will not be just any citizens of the Irish Republic who are entitled to be on our electoral register and to vote. The Government intend to extend to Members of Parliament in southern Ireland the privilege of becoming serving Members in any of our parliamentary institutions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. He knows full well that we are discussing a narrow amendment, and he is going wide of the subject.

Mr. Maclean: I entirely accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment would delete the three-month residency qualification. I was merely trying to illustrate


the point that people from Northern Ireland who work in the rest of the UK and return to Northern Ireland will have to prove that they have lived in the Province for three months before they can vote. The Minister will probably say that he does not want to remove that condition and that, for various reasons, it must remain. He would say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Tough luck, ladies and gentleman. You have got to have a three-month residency qualification."
I was not trying to explore the Bill that we shall debate on Monday and Tuesday; I was simply trying to illustrate how wrong the situation is for British citizens in Northern Ireland, because if the Disqualifications Bill goes through the House next week, Senators—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he has already said that. He has made that case to the House and he must move on without repeating what he has already said.

Mr. Maclean: I have no intention of repeating my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not clear that the point had been made. I am not as capable of making lucid points as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I sometimes think that I have to put my point again in a slightly different way to make sure that it has been understood. I accept your advice that it has been understood.
I move on to the substance of my remarks. The three-month residency qualification is in clauses 4 and 6. Without touching on the previous debate—if I were to mention that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order—I can say that it was about the Government making regulations. Clause 9 is vague and gives the Government great scope to produce any regulations that they want, yet in clauses 4 and 6 there is no suggestion that the residency qualification should be dealt with by regulation.
7 pm
What will happen in a couple of months' time when the Bill has been rushed through the House, rushed through another place, and becomes law? What happens when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the Cabinet sub-Committee and says, "More progress has been made in Northern Ireland, so we must now scrap the residency qualification"? Given the pace at which the Government have been changing the constitution of this country and the law in Northern Ireland, it is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that, at some point in the future and for various reasons about which I shall not speculate, the Government will conclude that the three-month residency qualification is an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, or offends one or another of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, if the amendment is not made, the provision will be in primary legislation; therefore, to change it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to introduce another piece of legislation.
I am giving the Government an opportunity. If passed, the amendments would delete the relevant lines from clauses 4 and 6. However, if the Government believe that a residency qualification is essential for now, they can build in a regulation-making power that would enable them to make such a provision. They might be sensible to

take the chance offered in another place to change clauses 4 and 6 and take a power that enables them to make a regulation requiring, for the time being, a residency qualification in Northern Ireland. Then, in two or six months' time, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that, in the interests of peace, the residency qualification must be dropped, the Government will be able to make the necessary changes immediately, without consultation.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend knows that I have the highest regard for the way in which he raises all sorts of important issues in the House. However, does he accept that many people criticise the Government's legislation for leaving too much to secondary legislation, as was the case with the Health Act 1999? Would not the acceptance of his proposals leave far too open matters that deserve, and should receive, the House's full attention, rather than being left to a decision made Upstairs?

Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point that important pieces of election law should not be subject to the whim of regulation. However, we have just spent an hour or so debating a vital clause, the provisions of which are to be left entirely to regulations that we have not yet seen, which are likely to be subject to a brief consultation process before being bounced through. If the Government consider it acceptable to make a host of regulations under clause 9 and other clauses, why do they not use regulation in the narrow matter of the Northern Ireland residency provision?
The Government can easily put in the Bill a provision stating that there will be a residency qualification in Northern Ireland, renewable by regulation each year until such time as the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer needed—it would be similar to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. There are other means by which the Government can attain their end, so why put it in the Bill? I am giving the Government an opt-out, but what I really want to hear is not that they will make that provision through regulation, but that it is not necessary at all, because it is wrong to discriminate against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Forth: I rise to reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to thank him for his generous words. He might come to regret them, but I shall try to live up to his praise.
I start by reinforcing my right hon. Friend's final argument, which is well worn but none the less important. During consideration of almost every Bill with which I have been involved during my many years as a Member of Parliament, we have, quite properly, debated the wisdom or otherwise of putting a provision in a Bill, thus giving it a sort of sanctity—fixing it. It is often argued that, if a matter is sufficiently important, there is a case for putting it in the Bill in order deliberately to make it more difficult to remove or alter. We have all heard that argument, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend's question is whether that argument makes sense in the context of this Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, it seems strange that, just a few hours after hearing an important statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the future


of the RUC in the context of progress being made—Northern Ireland was changing and that we must all be prepared to make changes—we are considering a Bill that features a measure that would, by definition, be fixed or at least extremely difficult to change. I cannot understand how those two things can be squared.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. Does he agree that, as in many other circumstances, the soundbite "joined-up government" makes no sense in this instance?

Mr. Forth: That is true. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted about the provision that we are debating. The Minister will agree that it appears greatly at odds with the message that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to send—which is about the normalisation of Northern Ireland as conditions there come more into line with conditions in the United Kingdom mainland—to have in the Bill a provision that marks out Northern Ireland as being distinct and different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Opposition are challenging that contradiction and the wisdom of the Government approach. The Government cannot have it both ways: if government were joined-up, there would be consistency between the arguments that they present and the content of their Bills.
The problem goes deeper than that. Anyone who has spent any time as a Member of Parliament knows that, as soon as something is put in a Bill, it becomes fixed to some degree—not immutable, but extremely difficult to alter, because a provision in primary legislation can be changed only by further primary legislation. Do the Government really want to fix a measure relating to Northern Ireland to that extent, given their desire to persuade us that matters in Northern Ireland are moving forward, progressing, changing and improving—that Northern Ireland is becoming more "normal", as they would describe it?
We have with us a distinguished colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate, because his contribution will be invaluable in revealing the point of view of our friends in Northern Ireland. We can only re-emphasise our commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our regard for Northern Ireland and our desire that it should be perceived as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the provision relating to a residency qualification is offensive, because it deliberately and gratuitously marks out Northern Ireland as requiring special treatment.
I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's argument. He will say that there is a long-standing fear that aliens from the Republic of Ireland might try to invade the body politic in Northern Ireland by inveigling their way on to the electoral register, thus gaining influence over the voting process in that part of the United Kingdom. Be that as it may—I make no judgment as to the likelihood of that happening or even as to whether it has already

happened—I can only speculate about whether a three-month residency requirement would do anything to prevent that process. I doubt very much that a three-month residency qualification would deter an alien person from the Republic of Ireland who was sufficiently determined to infiltrate the political process in Northern Ireland.
Setting that aside for a moment, I hope that the Minister recognises that the provisions of the Bill, as it would be if the amendments were accepted, backed up by provisions dealing with validation and verification of the registration process that will—provided they are accepted—be inserted in the Bill by amendments to which we shall come shortly, will provide sufficient safeguards against the process of alien infiltration of which the Minister appears so afraid and which he might argue is the motivation for his putting such an ill-conceived measure in the Bill.
We therefore have a peculiar set of circumstances. I shall be interested to hear the Minister weave his way through this part of the argument. I hope that he will deal with the discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this context and with whether the right hon. Gentleman is content with this part of the Bill. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that he can square what he said in the House a few hours ago with what is in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to tell me whether he regards Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, to be treated in every way the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he believes that the provisions that we shall come to later in our deliberations might well be sufficient to provide proper safeguards in the registration process without the need for an overriding process of the sort that we now have.

Mr. Bercow: Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is content with the provision and that, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, he advocated its inclusion in the Bill?

Mr. Forth: We know none of those things. It is ironic that so often we find ourselves speculating, whereas, in an era of alleged open government, we should know for sure. Ministers should be elbowing one another aside in their eagerness to share their thoughts with us and to demonstrate the Government's integrity and the effectiveness of collective responsibility. That should be the position, but I have not seen much sign of it so far.

Mr. Fabricant: I speak directly to the clause. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a direct consequence of the fact that Cabinet meetings are no longer held in the manner in which they were previously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking not to a clause but to an amendment. He is out of order.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know how anxious I am to get through this business quickly and to move on to Third Reading, when I can make really expansive remarks. My remarks now are but a taste of what I want to say. I cannot wait for Third


Reading. I shall deal narrowly with my hon. Friend's point while I am on my feet, but first I shall respond to the introduction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He pointed out that we are dealing not only with the matters set out in clause 1 but with the parallel provisions to which our amendments apply in clauses 6 to 8, on page 8. We shall return to the matter when we deal with other amendments, because the Bill is closely intertwined and interwoven with declarations of local connection in the context of Northern Ireland.
I have a few doubts about such declarations as a principle, a concept and a working practice. Some of the amendments with which we shall deal later are designed to make the matter much more secure. Suffice to say that it is being suggested that, somehow, the declaration of local connection process or procedure in the Bill should be different in Northern Ireland. I do not see why that should be so. We are talking not about aliens coming from a strange foreign country, such as the Republic of Ireland, but local connection and the way in which that can be properly established.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. He has his work cut out tonight. He will have to work really hard to persuade us on this part of the Bill. However, I am sure that he can because he is an able man and has shown himself willing so far to do so. In this instance, he will have to take us carefully through the argument about why, in the context of local connection—we are seeking to amend the process by means of the amendment—Northern Ireland is necessarily different.
7.15 pm
I have speculated on what the Minister might say about the previous part of the argument, but I cannot even begin to imagine how he will justify singling out Northern Ireland when it comes to declarations of local connection. I have my suspicions about the entire process, and no doubt we shall examine it later in our proceedings. However, at this stage I wish to point out that, yet again, distinctions are made between circumstances in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere when the Government are at pains to try to persuade the House that distinctions exist less and less, if they have not disappeared entirely.
In conclusion—

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I will give way, but I wanted to conclude my remarks.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is dealing with local connection and I wished to intervene before he departed from it. I draw attention to lines 39 to 44 in clause 6 on page 8. Does he not find it incongruous that, about 15 lines beforehand, the clause states that a person can be on the register, having made a declaration of local connection, if he is a citizen of the Irish Republic? Will he contrast that with the fact that a citizen of Northern Ireland who lives there cannot get on the register for three months?

Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The more we examine the Bill, the more we are forced to believe that it is ill-directed, poorly drafted and

contains the seeds of some real dangers for our electoral processes. That is bad enough for the mainland; how much worse could it be in relation to Northern Ireland, with the difficulties that it has? The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned earlier in an intervention that he is all too well aware of the dangers.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that having these provisions in the Bill is utter folly. The position would be bad enough anyway, but having in the Bill such provisions referring to Northern Ireland will not do. I hope that the Minister will accept that. Either he will deploy the most powerful and detailed arguments to persuade us that what I have said is groundless, or he must accept the amendments to put right this part of the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I agree on so many points that come before the House, they will understand how deep is my pain that I must disagree with them on this occasion. I understand from the expression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that he is quite horrified. I hope that he will understand that my pain is exactly the same as that felt by every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this evening, and that of every widow of an RUC officer who was murdered by the IRA. I hope that he will understand how angry those people are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. He knows that he must speak to the amendment.

Mr. Ross: That is the point. I was explaining how deeply pained I am that I must disagree with right hon. and hon. Members on this occasion. They will be aware that, if the amendment were accepted, it would run across existing legislation in Northern Ireland. The legislation provides that there must be residence of three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date for electoral registration in Northern Ireland. It was provided as a safeguard. It meant that an individual had to come to live in Northern Ireland for three months. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has dealt with the danger that people would move from the Irish Republic into sensitive areas where 100 or 50 votes could make an enormous difference. Individuals had to be resident for three months before 15 September. They then had literally to stay there for another three months until the electoral list became the electoral register, which would be towards Christmas. In other words, all the hearings in the local electoral courts had to be completed and all the rest of it. Instead of having to stay for three months, they had to stay for six. That is why the legislation exists in regard to Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentlemen know, in normal circumstances I am most willing that legislation should be exactly the same for the whole of the United Kingdom.
May I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that rather than removing the provision for Northern Ireland, it should apply to the entire United Kingdom? That would be a much better solution to the problem. I can tell my right hon. Friends that there are always an enormous number of people floating backwards and forwards between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, who have voting rights in this country.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman will see that amendment No. 30, which we shall discuss later, would


have precisely that effect in respect of declarations of local connection. Its purpose is to avoid abuse at by-elections.

Mr. Ross: I am gratified that Conservative Members have spotted the loophole—the danger for the electoral process in Great Britain—and are trying to take steps to close it. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one thing for Northern Ireland and reject the amendment, and then reject the next amendment, which protects the position in regard to Great Britain.
I am delighted that right hon. and hon. Members with much greater expertise and resources than I have spotted the loophole, or rather, the barn door, and have proposed precautions to close the door. I hope that they are successful.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentlemen considered the crazy paragraph just after the words that amendment No. 17 would remove, which states:
No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections".
When I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister said that he would consider the point and write to me. He has not done so yet, so perhaps he has not had enough time to consider it.
The proposals hang together as a piece. We need to know the purpose of the provision. If it deals with individuals coming into Northern Ireland and the requirement for them to be there for three months, how can it specify that those people cannot come in and register for the sole purpose of taking part in a local government election? The date of local government elections is known years ahead. I do not understand what the words mean. The Minister is listening, and I know that by this time he will have considered the matter, so he will be able to give us a clear answer.

Mr. Maclean: I have been listening carefully and with great respect to my hon. Friend's point. Is it his firm view that there is still a genuine threat in Northern Ireland of the electoral register being flooded with aliens from another country and distortions occurring in the electoral process, which make the three-month provision vital?

Mr. Ross: That is indeed my view. I believe that there are certain circumstances and certain areas—perhaps very small—where that could be a factor. Whenever the outcome of council elections especially, and perhaps constituency elections, hangs on a handful of votes, 20 or 30 people moving into each ward or 50 people in a critical ward could make an enormous difference.
I fear that that is true not only in Northern Ireland, but in Wales, perhaps in Scotland and in certain parts of England. If the Government want to retain the words in the Bill, they cannot refuse to insert the words that Conservative Members will seek to insert in later amendments.
It pains me to tell the right hon. Gentlemen that I cannot support their amendment, but my pain has been considerably diminished by the discovery that they have spotted the barn door that exists with regard to Great Britain and that they propose a way of dealing with it. I hope that the Government will not wait for the

amendment to be moved, but that the Minister will rise to say that it is so wise, so reasonable and so much in keeping with the provisions of clause 6 that the Government will instantly accept the amendment, and that they will make certain that the same rules apply throughout the United Kingdom.
I should not like the Minister to lose his seat, in case a large number of Unionists moved over and settled in his constituency. After the performance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today, he would not have a snowball's chance of getting an ex-Unionist vote. In the past, many people voted for the Labour party in Northern Ireland. By their actions today, the Government have destroyed any possibility of those people, should they emigrate to Great Britain, ever casting a vote for that party.
The destruction being wreaked on the police force in Northern Ireland—I dare not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you would instantly call me to order. Destroying the RUC and leaving so many people open to future attack by terrorists bites deeply and is greatly resented. That resentment will not quickly fade. The Minister will be long gone from the House before it will fade or be forgotten.

Mr. Wilshire: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) —my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him that, because that is indeed what he is. It may help him to know that not only have events earlier in the day caused great hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers—a matter which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you rightly say we should not discuss—but that the parts of the Bill with which amendments Nos. 13 and 17 deal will also cause hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers and others who have served so bravely in that part of the United Kingdom.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry that I have always wondered what the Irish air, the Ulster-East Londonderry mist, does to the mind. I was deeply touched to hear ascribed to the Minister a great sense of charity and reasonableness, which I hope will lead the hon. Gentleman later to agree, if not with the Opposition, then with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.
If that is what the mists of East Londonderry do, perhaps we should all move there, if necessary for the three months, and have ourselves registered to vote in my hon. Friend's constituency. If by any chance today's events have not guaranteed his re-election for life, I for one would be delighted to go there and support him, should he ever need my vote.
I am an Englishman and proud of it, but I have always done my level best to try to see things through the eyes of those who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the special provisions. He will see from the list of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friends that amendment No. 3 would have provided an alternative way of dealing with the problem that he rightly identifies. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not select it.
Had we gone down the route proposed in amendment No. 3, the present debate would not have been necessary. Amendment No. 3 would have removed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 3 has not been selected, so the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it. He can discuss only the two amendments before us.

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that. I am sure that it will be possible to raise the same issue as a matter that arises from amendment No. 13.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry—that the rule should apply to the entire United Kingdom—appeals to me. I might have enthusiastically supported such an amendment, had he tabled it.
7.30 pm
Every week, nearly 500,000 people land at Heathrow airport on the borders of my constituency. The thought of their being able to rush into Spelthorne council offices and register to vote before they move on appals me.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and also apologise for not spotting the issue that he raised. If I had spotted the problem, I would have tabled an amendment on it. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill builds brick after brick on previous legislation. We have reached a point where we need consolidation. Before tabling an amendment, we need a week to plough through all the legislation.

Mr. Wilshire: That is the problem with trying to rush a Bill through unnecessarily. Calmer, more reflective consideration would undoubtedly have made a bad Bill slightly less bad.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend speaks of rushing the measure through. The Government's interest is reflected by the presence of only two Labour Members while the Opposition Benches are packed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must concentrate on the amendments.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) makes the fair point that many Opposition Members are deeply worried about the clause. It is significant that many of my hon. Friends are here to debate amendments Nos. 13 and 17 while Labour Members do not seem interested in them. Even if we cannot discuss the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, we can consider those who are interested and those who show no interest in the amendments. But you rightly urge me to speak about the substance of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment No. 13 would delete subsection (2). It is important to understand the exact aim of the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 4(1) set out ways in which people can register. Amendment No. 13 is necessary because of subsection (1)(c), which provides that citizens of the Republic of Ireland can, of right, get on to a United Kingdom register. But for that provision, amendment No. 13 would be unnecessary. I believe that it would have been better to face the problem of our giving

foreigners a vote in the United Kingdom. If we did not do that, the amendment would have been unnecessary. I have never understood the reason for giving foreigners votes on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom.
People claim that we have reciprocal arrangements, but, with the greatest respect, I do not want to vote in the Irish Republic. If I wanted to vote in that alien, foreign country, I would become an Irish citizen. I do not want to do that, so I do not understand why right my hon. Friends should have had to table amendment No. 13. We should not have to tackle such a problem. The fact remains that the problem exists, and I therefore support my right hon. Friends' approach.

Mr. Graham Brady: In earlier discussions, many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, commented on the ability of United Kingdom citizens to vote in this country when they were not resident for a period of time. There is inconsistency in their attitude towards the ability of our citizens and those of the Irish Republic to vote in UK elections.

Mr. Wilshire: It has become obvious in the past year or two that there are no depths to which the Government will not sink in trying to appease the Republic of Ireland. The provision is yet another example of the appeasement that takes place when the Government are faced with people pointing guns at them. If they believe that such appeasement will work, I have news for them: it will not.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking not only about the Government's insatiable appetite for appeasement but about their determination at all costs and wherever possible to gerrymander?

Mr. Wilshire: The Government are keen on anything that gives the Labour party an advantage in electioneering.
I assume that the Minister judged subsection (2) necessary through fear of thousands of foreigners jumping into coaches for an away-day or a weekend break and charging across the border into the United Kingdom for just long enough to try to gerrymander. However, my understanding of Northern Ireland politics, of which I try to be a student, shows that it does not take people on away-days from the Republic to cause a problem; people who are legitimately entitled to be on the register vote sufficiently often to do their own gerrymandering without involving those from a foreign country to add to the confusion. The Government would be advised to tackle the "vote early, vote often" problem rather than concentrating on people being bussed in from Dublin.

Mr. Maclean: The question for the Minister is one that I wish I had asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it has just occurred to me. If the provision is vital to prevent citizens of a foreign country from swamping Northern Ireland on 10 October, or whatever the date for registration, and they thus cannot be trusted, why should they be entitled to a vote in the United Kingdom or for the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend had no choice but to ask me the question because I gave way to him, but I am the last person to give him a sensible answer. I do not have an answer, and I suspect that the Government do not either. I shall leave it to the Minister to try to defend the indefensible.
I am worried about the way in which the Bill disfranchises many British citizens. That cannot be right. It is wrong for the House to pass measures that take the vote away from British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave one example, but there are others that we need to consider. Not only people who serve the Crown in our armed forces and leave Northern Ireland, but any British subject normally resident in Northern Ireland who for some reason has to spend time in Great Britain in the prescribed three-month period, will be caught by the problem. Such people will automatically be left off the register. People who return to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, perhaps to nurse or take care of members of their families who are ill, during the specified three-month period will no longer qualify for a vote in their own country. People who are normally resident in Northern Ireland and have jobs that take them to Great Britain for periods of time would also be struck off the register. That cannot be right.
We should consider another group of people: those who have been residents in Great Britain, perhaps for decades, who choose to move to that other part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. Perhaps a promotion in their jobs means that they move to Belfast, or perhaps they move to be with their families. Perhaps, for the air or mists of Londonderry, people choose to retire in that beautiful part of our country. If such people do so within three months of the compilation of a register, they will lose their vote for the following year. That cannot be right.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government and encouraging investment in Northern Ireland. That is to be applauded. Does my hon. Friend think that there may be individuals in the rest of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—who may be deterred from taking one of the new jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland because they would lose their voting rights as a consequence of the measure?

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I must confess I had not got round to. I am most grateful to him for drawing it to my attention and I hope that the whole House will see that as yet another reason why the Bill should not pass tonight without amendment. I find the matter at the heart of amendment No. 13 as deeply offensive as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. If we do not amend the Bill, it will create two classes of British elector: the first-class electors, who will mainly be in Great Britain, and the second-class electors, who will mainly be in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Up to now, there have been no lengths to which they would not go, but are they seriously telling us that they are content with a Bill that will create two classes of British elector? If so, they should be deeply ashamed.
Amendment No. 17, on the face of it, appears to do exactly the same thing, but it has its arguments the other way round. As I understand it, the provision with which it seeks to deal addresses those people who, for whatever reason, are at the moment in a mental hospital or institution. They will be given the right to identify a place where they have a local connection. Throughout Great

Britain, such people will only have to indicate an address for the provisions to apply. But if someone identifies an address in Northern Ireland, an additional test will be applied—the connection will have had to exist for a longer period.
On this occasion, the test of a longer period could sensibly be applied to Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland because we are dealing with a specialist, sensitive and difficult issue. To have a period of time attached to the address would be in everybody's interest, because it would help to ensure that a sensible, lasting judgment was made. I support the amendment for that reason, but the Minister could get himself out of difficulty by saying that he will reintroduce it in another place, applying it not only to Northern Ireland but to Great Britain as well.
I believe that it is deeply offensive to the British citizens who live in Northern Ireland to be told that, yet again, they are to be treated separately and in a second-class way. I will be charitable to the Minister and accept that he genuinely does not intend to cause that hurt and offence to the widows of those Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have been killed over the years in the tragedy that has been Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I plead with him either to accept the amendments or to listen to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and solve the problem in the alternative way.

Mr. Fabricant: I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made some powerful arguments. He mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have died, and we should remember that 301 serving officers have died in the cause of freedom, liberty and equity over the past few years in the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about the RUC. Important as it is, it does not fall within the confines of the amendment, to which he must speak.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that my point might not be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should point out that those officers did not die—they were murdered.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend might be out of order, but nevertheless I hope that Hansard will note his comment, with which I wholly agree.
I support the amendment because, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have so ably pointed out, there is an inconsistency. In November, I suffered a personal tragedy: after 10 years, I had to surrender my dark blue passport and obtain my little flexible red European Union passport, which still has on its face—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the words, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", an integrated whole.
The Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government in trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is therefore ironic that, today of all days, we should be debating a measure that creates an inconsistency—


a difference—between one part of the United Kingdom and another. I truly believe that that is wrong on two counts: first, on principle and, secondly, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Today we have heard a statement about the future of the RUC and the hopes of the Government—and, indeed, of the whole House—for the future of Northern Ireland and its normalisation, but only a few hours later we are, I suspect, about to hear the Minister argue against this reasonable amendment, which says that we should take an holistic approach to the Representation of the People Bill in particular and the law in general in respect of England, Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend may agree that an aspect of the statement on the Patten report is germane to the amendment. Several thousand RUC officers will be removed from service and given a substantial payment. They will probably become a mobile element of the population of Northern Ireland. They may move to other constituencies in Northern Ireland or come to other parts of the United Kingdom for a time. In that context, they are very much affected by the amendment.

Mr. Fabricant: That point had not occurred to me, but is germane. If such officers attempt to seek work in other parts of the Province, they will meet the residency requirement for Northern Ireland, but the Minister must explain whether under the Bill they would have to be resident in a new constituency for three months to have a vote there. I hope that he will make that clear, one way or another.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has highlighted an extremely pertinent point. In reflecting on it, will my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield concede that the greater likelihood is that the problem will be not that an individual will perambulate around Northern Ireland or move to another part of it while looking for new employment but that he will move to another part of the kingdom altogether? If he is absent for several months, he may have great difficulties. Does not that point need to be entertained by Ministers?

Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a fascinating and powerful point, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the provision. That ex-RUC police officer would have to demonstrate not that he had been in England, Scotland or Wales for three months—merely that he was resident on 10 October or whatever the night might be. I might add that such an officer would have great difficulty in finding employment in a police constabulary in England, Scotland or Wales, given that in Staffordshire, for example, there has been a reduction in the number of police officers. I suspect that the poor ex-RUC officer would end up getting a job as a security guard or something else.
I understand why the clause was drafted in the first place. I suspect that it was to prevent people from the Republic of Ireland from moving to Northern Ireland in order to vote. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out, that provision would be no deterrent. Many people living in the Republic have relatives and friends in Northern

Ireland, so it would present no difficulty for them to claim that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the specified three months.
I would simply argue that, first, the clause is no deterrent; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the holistic approach that the Government are attempting to take, despite the fact that there is no joined-up government in Cabinet meetings; and thirdly, that there is no holistic approach to the idea that the United Kingdom is an integrated whole. I am pleased to see Ministers taking copious notes and listening carefully. I expect the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whose constituency almost abuts mine, to respond fully to the points that and my hon. Friends and I have made.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House long.
I have listened with great care and interest to the arguments, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My hon. Friend made some extremely valid points about the risk that is posed to people who are citizens of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who have to be away from their residences for three months for family or business reasons. Such practical considerations will put those people at a disadvantage in comparison with other citizens of this country.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but I think that he is making an error that I have made. The test for qualification is not whether such people are away for the entire three months, but whether their residency of three months is interrupted for any short period. Therefore, somebody intending to live in Northern Ireland for a few months on attachment who returns to Great Britain for a week's course will lose the residency qualification. The provision is even more iniquitous than I thought.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which the Government must answer. The Minister is a reasonable man and will want to deal comprehensively with it.
The economy of Northern Ireland has been doing well for some time and it is not fair that the people there should be penalised simply because the Government want to ensure some modicum of protection against citizens of the Republic of Ireland flooding across the border, swamping the register and bringing about undesirable changes out of expediency.
It is extraordinary that, when we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland people should continue to have to bear such a burden and be handicapped unlike any other part of the United Kingdom. There is some force to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that they are second-class citizens.

Mr. Bercow: One of the difficulties with this debate is that the longer that we discuss the salient matters, the more potential objections to the Government's proposals seem to emerge. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that, under the clause as it stands, there is no distinction


between, on the one hand, an interruption of the three-month period that could reasonably have been expected to be anticipated, and on the other, an interruption that could not be so anticipated?

Mr. Howarth: The wording is clear: there is no distinction. A person must be resident in Northern Ireland for the entire three months, ending on the relevant date, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. If an elector is away for any part of that three-month period, he will suffer disfranchisement, which all of us in the House obviously regard extremely seriously.
I also have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have felt for many years that it is simply not right that citizens of a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, does not acknowledge Her Majesty the Queen as head of state and owes no allegiance to this country should nevertheless enjoy the privilege—for indeed it is a privilege—of voting in our local and parliamentary elections.
We are faced with a predicament precisely because we have for years without any foundation allowed people in the Republic of Ireland to enjoy such a privilege. The clause was drafted to afford some protection from gerrymandering that could bring about a sharp change in policy or, heaven forbid, the constitution of Northern Ireland.
Both options before the House are unattractive. It is unattractive to have special arrangements for our fellow citizens, who are equally loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and that they should suffer such a handicap, but it is right and proper that we should protect our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland from a sudden influx of people from the Republic who have moved to Northern Ireland for the express purpose of robbing it of its constitution and bringing about change that would not be acceptable to its residents.
8 pm
We are faced with two options: to continue with the present arrangements, which handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland but provide them with the protection that I have outlined; or to sweep away that protection but ensure that people do not lose their franchise in Northern Ireland if they interrupt their three-month residency requirement. On balance, sadly, I would not support the amendment, not because I do not agree with the principle—I agree with almost everything that my right hon. Friends have said tonight—but because the consequences would be a greater disadvantage to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
Ministers must tell the people why we continue to perpetuate the right of citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in this country when they owe no allegiance to it or to Her Majesty the Queen and are not even entitled to the protection afforded to all of us who hold a British passport. The situation is anomalous and, I believe, wrong. I do not intend to support my right hon. Friends on the amendment, so I hope that Ministers will do me the courtesy of offering me some reassurance that they will try to engineer a state of affairs whereby we do not

have to handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland in order to provide them with protection against a concerted political assault from citizens of the Republic.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I understand the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and his desire that the electoral registration system should be as free of inconsistencies across the United Kingdom as is reasonable in the circumstances, but the fact is that special circumstances apply in Northern Ireland, and the three-month residency requirement reflects that. It serves a useful purpose in ensuring that only bona fide registrations are made.
More important, it is well worth pointing out that none of the Northern Ireland parties have asked for the requirement to be removed, even though the Bill would have provided an excellent opportunity to do that. The comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reflected that. The working party on electoral procedures had the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Pat Bradley, as one of its members, and he did not recommend removing the requirement. As those most concerned seem happy with the existing position, I see no reason to change it.

Mr. Maclean: Does the Minister share the view of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that there is a real risk of the register being flooded with people who are not normally resident in Northern Ireland if we do not have the three-month qualification?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure that anyone is arguing that there is a risk of floods of voters coming in, but there is sensitivity to voting issues in Northern Ireland, and the provisions have been law since 1949. The right hon. Gentleman described the rules relating to who can vote and I remind him that in national elections British people, Irish people and people from the Commonwealth can vote, and in local and European elections British-registered voters and Commonwealth, Irish and European Union people can vote.
The right hon. Gentleman described the way in which certain people from the Irish Republic can vote in British elections as an obscenity and an outrage. That obscenity and outrage existed during 18 years of Conservative government and there was not a peep out of him during that whole period. That says enough about the approach that he has taken. I appreciate what is happening today, but perhaps he should not engender more indignation than he can conveniently contain.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also suggested that the rules take away certain people's right to vote. He, too, did not seem to be concerned about the matter when his party was in government. The position has existed since 1949.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment?
Given the situation in Northern Ireland, we need to proceed with some care.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman will please bear with me for a moment.
We would be best advised to proceed with care, and that is the approach that we intend to take.

Mr. Wilshire: I wanted to intervene only because of the comments that the Minister made about me and my position over the past 18 years. If he can find a moment in a busy day to check the record, he will find that I have been a public and vociferous critic of the way in which Northern Ireland has been treated by all Governments since I have been a Member of Parliament. I did indeed make the same criticisms when my party was in government.

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman tells me that he has done that, I will certainly accept his word.
Various comments have been made and I do not want to go through them all. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of them bordered on being out of order. I am sure that you would have dealt with them had they been out of order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others made various comments about Irish voters in Britain and I am sure that the large number of people of Irish heritage who vote in the UK will be well acquainted with his views.
The best contribution was from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who said that he was a little bit worried that floods of Unionists might come to North Warwickshire to deal with me during the election. I look forward to that, and I will think long and hard about his suggestions as a result of that comment.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: I am placed in a difficult position, because I had intended to follow my instinct and press the amendment to a vote, and I am not persuaded by the Minister, but I have to pay close attention to the earnest concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).
I want to clarify one point that the Minister mentioned. I think it an awful anomaly that citizens of the Irish Republic should be able to vote in our elections, but the obscenity is not that mere fact but the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, who have perhaps served in the police, the RUC or the armed forces, or as teachers or nurses in Belfast, can lose their franchise if they come to this country for a week's course, for cancer treatment or on attachment for two or three weeks.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for drawing my attention to the point that, if those people fail to be resident for the whole of the period, they lose their right to be on the register and are disenfranchised, while someone passing through from the Republic of Ireland has the vote. Putting those two together is the juxtaposition: not the fact that aliens have the right to vote, but that British citizens will lose it through no fault of their own. Putting those two together is the obscenity.
I was greatly interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry had to say, which is why I asked the Minister to clarify whether he agreed with him that there is the real risk that, unless we have the three-month qualification, some people from the Republic may—perhaps flood was the wrong word—register

falsely and have a vote to which they are not entitled. The Minister was using a good Home Office brief, with the points to take and some that were to be used only if pressed. He picked his words carefully. He did not say, "Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lots of Irish Republican citizens will be flooding the register." He did not use those words but, by the substance of the careful and sensitive words that he used in the present sensitive situation, he was agreeing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry was right.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclean: The Government must be agreeing. There must be the risk. That is the only reason why they are maintaining it. Yes, the Government can hide behind the fact that all the parties in Northern Ireland still want the provision. The Government clearly share the view that there is a risk.
I am faced with an awful dilemma. Here we have an injustice—it is an injustice that people in Northern Ireland have to have the residency qualification when the rest of us and aliens from another state do not. However, because the political parties in Northern Ireland see an even greater injustice in the register being flooded by those aliens who may influence their vote, they wish to keep it. Surely the only way to remedy the problem in future is to impose similar conditions on the rest of us in the United Kingdom, so that we can equalise that injustice to Northern Ireland citizens.
I have listened carefully to the Minister, who replied carefully. I would not find his arguments on their own convincing or persuasive—

Mr. O'Brien: Let the record show that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my comments is not necessarily one that I precisely share. Let my comments speak for themselves in Hansard.

Mr. Maclean: The Minister's comments will speak for themselves, but I can see the headlines when The Times, The Telegraph and Peterborough write up the essence of the Minister's remarks tomorrow. It will be, "Minister says danger of southern Irish citizens flooding register in north." That is what he said in essence, although he picked his words carefully.
In view of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for East Londonderry that an even greater injustice would be caused to citizens in northern Ireland if the amendment were agreed, I will reluctantly withdraw it, but I urge the Government to remove that injustice by another means.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

RESIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION: GENERAL

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 7, after 'the', insert 'verifiable'.
No. 57, in page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.
No. 6, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
No. 7, in page 5, line 32, leave out 'temporary'.
No. 8, in page 5, line 32, after 'unemployment', insert
'of less than 3 months'.

Mr. Maclean: I have moved the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who tabled it. He has apologised that he cannot be here to do so.
Through this amendment and the related amendment No. 57, which suggest that certain words should be deleted, we seek clarification from the Government as to why they are included and about the detail of what they mean. Clause 3, line 7 reads:
Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.

Mr. Forth: That is garbage.

Mr. Maclean: It may be, but it is probably grammatically correct. What does that sentence mean? I confess that I do not know. I have an inkling of what I think that it may mean. I know what, "Regard shall be had" means. What about, "in particular"? If regard is to be had, in particular, what are all the other circumstances that the Government have in mind? Will the Minister explain these particular ones? What about
to the purpose and other circumstances … of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date"?
I think that the Minister would agree that the sentence is opaque.
I am certain that the Minister, who is kindly with us on secondment again from the Northern Ireland Office—I think that he called it unpaid day release last week, or something of the sort—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: No fixed fee.

Mr. Maclean: Yes—on transfer for no fixed fee.
I welcome the Minister's presence. He is always kind and courteous at the Dispatch Box and always seeks to elucidate where he can. I am certain that, if his brief has been prepared by the people whom I think prepared it in the Home Office—meaning no disrespect to the excellent Northern Ireland Office—it will contain some excellent detail. Admittedly, some of our legislation ended up in judicial review in the High Court—that is always a penalty of Home Office legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister's brief is likely to explain the circumstances.
What are the facts? I suspect that much of the brief will be available to be put into the public domain, or put on the record, if an hon. Member asks. I suspect that little will be in the "If pressed" category and there may be nothing in the category at the bottom of the brief headed, "Not to be revealed in any circumstances."
I simply ask the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, what exactly those three lines mean and what other matters the Government have in mind that are not included by the words, "in particular"?
The amendments also suggest the deletion of lines 10 to 14. Those read:
For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all the circumstances be taken to be at that time—

(a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or
(b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."

That seems an extraordinary catch-all. No doubt the lawyers who drafted the clause know exactly what it means. The Minister, with his excellent brief and sharp mind, will know what it means, but it seems like gobbledegook to me and I would be grateful for an explanation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is no doubt learned in a non-House of Commons, technical, nomenclatural sense, will be able to advise me.

Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. To try to help him, I took up the explanatory notes provided by the Government. However, the notes for this clause simply use the same words. They state:
The subsection provides that a person who is staying somewhere other than on a permanent basis may be regarded as resident if he does not have a home elsewhere.
Those sound suspiciously like the words that my right hon. Friend read from the Bill. It looks as though we are again trapped by the circularity that is becoming the hallmark of this badly drafted legislation.

Mr. Maclean: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that the Home Office has not become so afraid of judicial review under the new Government that the explanatory memorandums are merely copying the exact words in the Bill lest some clever clogs should take the Department to court. However, I would not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Bill is badly drafted. We may discover that in due course. I suspect that it is an obscurely drafted Bill. That is often not the fault of departmental officials, who send away a technical brief that anyone—certainly a Minister—can understand, but get back something from the parliamentary draftsman that no one can understand.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend of the view that, if the meaning of the provision is that an individual is not resident there if he has a home elsewhere, it means also that, if he has a home elsewhere, he is judged to be permanently resident at that other home, notwithstanding the temporary interruption? If so, does it not appear that the wording of that provision conflicts directly with the proposal on page 2 to which we referred a moment ago?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend's explanation of what the proposal seems to mean appears to be correct, and may be the only explanation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether my hon. Friend has come to the correct interpretation. If he has, there would, prima facie, seem to be a conflict with clause 2.

Mr. Fabricant: I must confess that I am confused. Is my right hon. Friend arguing that he supports the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), under which the whole clause would be removed because it is gobbledegook? Or is he


arguing in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), under which the gobbledegook would be improved by the addition of the word "verifiable"—which, to me, makes it even gobbledegooker?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will leave the other amendments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For simplicity's sake, I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The amendment must be phrased in such a way as to draw attention to what my hon. Friend calls gobbledegook. It is not possible to table an amendment to ask the Minister to explain that passage, so one must use the parliamentary device of proposing to delete lines 7 to 14.
I would not propose to push the amendment to the vote—unless the Minister's explanation horrifies me—as my intention is not to delete the lines, but to seek information and elucidation. I have every confidence that the Minister will be able to provide that.

Mr. Forth: I will pick up the baton from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) at this point.
I was upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) indicated that my amendment was of less than complete value before I had even had a chance to explain it. He will be listening attentively, as always, as I try to explain it. A number of our amendments seek to make the Bill more secure and, therefore, to enhance it. This amendment is probably the least important of that group, but it has its own validity.
Clause 3 states:
Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.
However, as soon as one introduces the concept of "the fact", there is a duty to establish whether it is a fact or not.

Mr. Fabricant: I hesitate to argue with my right hon. Friend—for whom normally I have the greatest respect—but is it not usually the case that when one attests to a fact, one must verify it? Therefore, the amendment to introduce the word "verifiable" is a gross tautology.

Mr. Forth: I hope that that is not the case. I am barely scratching at the surface of my argument, so my hon. Friend should not rush too quickly to call me to account. If he is patient, he might be prepared to agree with me. If not, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and give the reasons why.
I may not have selected the right word—the House knows how I struggle to find my words—in calling for a "verifiable" fact. I have tried to establish that there should be incumbent on the registration officer an additional procedure, through which he will seek to verify what is claimed in the process of registration by the person seeking that registration.
We are talking about a new, dynamic register—of which I have not been fully persuaded—so there is a greater requirement for verification at every part of the process. Otherwise, we will introduce a dynamic, but highly inaccurate and vulnerable register, rather than one

that is tight and secure. I hope that the Minister will agree that adding the word "verifiable" will give greater security to the process than would otherwise be the case. We do not know from the present wording how "the fact" is to be established or proved. Surely we cannot go too far in seeking to make our electoral register as secure as possible, and we shall return to this theme again and again.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend distinguishing between a fact being verifiable and a fact having been verified? There is surely a significant difference between the two. Will he explain whether his concern is that something should be capable of verification and whether, for example, we are to rely upon documents or circumstantial evidence? Or is he making the highly unlikely suggestion for a libertarian Conservative of his high credentials that there should be direct investigation of the whereabouts of particular individuals applying for the list on the date in question?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has, as ever, gone to the nub of the argument with unerring accuracy, and he forces me to come down on one side or other of the fence that he has erected. In this case, I would be prepared to leave it, as we must when considering a Bill of this kind, to the expertise, dedication and discretion of the registration officer to decide the precise mechanisms to be used to verify the contents of the register. My hon. Friend has conjured up a nightmare vision of registration officers acting as though they were Customs and Excise officers— [Interruption.] I thought that that would shock my hon. Friends: it was intended to because I wanted to wake them up. We must avoid that approach, but it is important to ensure that registration officers possess the necessary mechanisms to do the job. I hope that I have done enough to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend appears to be setting out a burden of proof which is just as great to demonstrate the presence of a person in his home as it is to demonstrate his absence. I think that that is wrong, because one should be able to state that one was present in one's home and have that accepted as a fact. If registration officers wish to prove one's absence, that should be verifiable.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is leading me into ethereal territory—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is the last thing we want.

Mr. Forth: In that case, I shall return—

Mr. Bercow: May I attempt to assist my right hon. Friend by encapsulating the solution to the conundrum that he poses? Does he agree that for this purpose, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Mr. Forth: We are making progress.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not wish to complicate matters, or to introduce a Venn diagram in the manner of my hon.


Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but surely what he was trying to say was that it is impossible to ask, "Hands up those children who are not here."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a debate, not a question and answer session. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wishes to conduct a tutorial, I am sure that he could see his hon. Friends afterwards.

Mr. Forth: Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a complicated argument about difficult concepts and it arose because we were exploring the meaning of the word "verifiable" in the context of amendment No. 5. However, I concede that we may have over-complicated the issue. We have probably teased enough out of it to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify the matter. He has followed the argument with ever more glazed eyes, but a useful brief may come to his assistance at any moment. I am confident that he will not need it.
I shall move on rapidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I try to be aware of your facial expressions and body language. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 cover different territory and we are, mercifully, out of the area of concept and into the area of numbers. Amendment No. 6 is a probing amendment. Clause 3 states:
For the purpose of determining whether a person is resident in a dwelling on the relevant date for the purposes of section 4 above, his residence in the dwelling shall not be taken to have been interrupted by reason of his absence in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service or employment held or undertaken by him if … he intends to resume actual residence within six months of giving up such residence, and will not be prevented from doing so by the performance of that duty".
Amendment No. 6 suggests that the period should be three months, and I invite the Minister to explain why it should be six months. I believe that three months would be more appropriate, but I am open to persuasion. I am confident that the Minister will be able to persuade us of his reasons, but I would like them to be put on the record.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am? Earlier in the debate, the number of months necessary to establish residency in Northern Ireland was put at three, but the number of months in clause 3 is six. We heard earlier about inconsistencies between the laws in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but this is an inconsistency between one part of the Bill and another.

Mr. Forth: I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's explanation, but the three months mentioned in the earlier debate about Northern Ireland related to the length of time that one must be able to establish residency before being able to register, but in this case we are talking about how long someone can be away from his established address but still remain validly registered. In the context of the new, dynamic, rolling register, six months may be too long if we wish to guarantee the reliability, validity and security of the register.
We are launching ourselves into an experiment in democracy. I am not convinced that we need the Bill at all—although I do not wish to pre-empt my speech on Third Reading—but if we are to have this misbegotten,

ill-thought-out and unnecessary measure, we must do what we can to make the register secure. We must be able to guarantee to the electorate that the new process will be tamper proof and cannot be misused.

Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend is persuasive, but I am puzzled by his argument. I can imagine many circumstances in which people—such as officers and other ranks in the Merchant Navy, or those serving in the Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy—would be absent from home for longer than three months, if not six months. Should not the amendment increase the time that a person is permitted to be away from home without being taken off the register?

Mr. Forth: I accept that point. I am not aware that there are special arrangements for the military.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): indicated assent.

Mr. Forth: The Under-Secretary of State is nodding. I am not surprised. The arrangements are probably buried somewhere in a schedule—[Interruption.] He confirms that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a good point, which we should always bear in mind, but most military people often take the opportunity of proxy votes, postal votes or whatever. However, it would be useful if the Minister said a few words about the matter when he replies to the debate.
I come to the next provision that we are seeking to probe through a little amendment. Clause 3(4) says:
For the purposes of subsection (3) above"—
the one that we have just been considering—
any temporary period of unemployment shall be disregarded.
That worries me. When I see a term such as "temporary" in this context in a Bill, I wonder whether it is the proper word to use. It gives rise to enormous potential for interpretation by different registration officers. It is possible that the Minister will want to tell me that the provision will be more closely specified in regulations. That would be half an argument.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion—nay, cynicism—that the inclusion of "temporary" with regard to unemployment might be an example of the politicisation of the Home Office?

Mr. Forth: I do not think that I share my hon. Friend's view. It is just sloppy drafting, not a conspiracy. It is a cock-up, which happens so often these days, I regret to say, even in something as important as legislation. The use of a term as variable and as open to diverse interpretation as "temporary" is unwise in such a Bill. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have suggested in our amendment that we insert a period of unemployment of less than three months. It would put beyond doubt and beyond interpretation what the registration officer should have in mind when he does his necessary work and verifies the register's contents. I should like to think that the Minister will accept the amendment. I will not die in the last ditch


over it at this stage. If he were to tell me that the period of three months was not right, but some other period was, I would go along with him.
If we leave a word such as "temporary" in the Bill, how would that provide sufficient security in the nationwide implementation of the measure, were it ever to come to that? Indeed, does it provide sufficient guidance for either local authorities when they contemplate pilot schemes, or registration officers when they have to implement the provision? I do not believe that it does.
We are pursuing a constant theme, to which we will return during discussion of future groups of amendments: is there sufficient tightness, sufficient security, in all the measures to make them reliable and effective? That is the thrust of my argument.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I will, but I am trying to conclude.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as he seeks to conclude his argument. Does he agree that it would not be mere cynicism, but justified apprehension on our part to consider that the clause's failure to define the meaning of the word "temporary" for that purpose might indicate the Government's intention to allow themselves maximum flexibility in the regulations? Although that might be good news for Ministers, it could be a source of growing anxiety to hundreds of electoral registration officers throughout the country.

Mr. Forth: That has to be the case. As my hon. Friend spoke, another thought flitted across my mind. I will try to dismiss it because I doubt that it could be true—but it is just possible that, were unemployment to start to rise dramatically from the level that, mercifully, it is at present, that would have a severe impact on the clause and on its implementation, constituency by constituency, registration officer by registration officer. It is one thing to frame such legislation in the happy circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of unemployment at the moment, but we are legislating for a long period. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anything that is put in the Bill will, by definition, exist for quite some time. You know better than me that changing primary legislation is not easy. Therefore, we must feel triply reassured about whatever appears in the Bill.
Those are the questions that I pose. We want to be helpful; we want to be flexible. Conservative Members are not being dogmatic. However, we are looking for the Minister's analysis, reasoning and explanation of those provisions in the Bill, either accepting our amendments or giving us cast-iron reassurances that the unhappiness that I have expressed is groundless and that that part of the Bill is secure. That is what I am looking for.

Mr. Wilshire: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your predecessor had to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I did not raise this as a point of order at the time, because it would have stopped the flow of a very important debate. My hon. Friend used the word "gobbledegooker" and your predecessor in the Chair could not see the eyes of the Hansard writer above you roll upwards at the use of a

word that does not exist. Did the previous Deputy Speaker indicate whether some guidance could be given, or whether my hon. Friend should be asked to provide a spelling for the word, because otherwise we will have some difficulty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member would do better to stick to the amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a difficult point in a difficult debate. However, as you say, there are important amendments before us which we must consider and, if necessary, vote on. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both explained, we are dealing with six separate amendments. Although they are related, they raise five individual, but linked, issues. It is important to consider each of those five issues carefully and separately.
When moving amendment No. 46, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that it was a probing amendment. He said, quite rightly, that we wanted the Minister to explain why this provision had been included in the Bill. We should also consider why it is not sufficient to stick to the facts. The subsection provides that we must consider the purpose of someone's presence or absence as well as the facts. I always thought that legislation aimed at being clear and precise and at sticking to the point. Someone is either present or they are not; they are either absent or they are not. The reason why is not the issue. As I understand it, the electoral register seeks to determine someone's residence. We could get locked into an argument about why people choose to live where they do as a purpose for being there. Surely that is not the issue.
Why are the facts of the matter not sufficient? Why do we have to wander into the issue of the purpose of presence or absence? What does the Minister mean by "purpose"? The Bill is not satisfied with the purpose alone—it states that regard shall be had
in particular, to the purpose".
As my right hon. Friend said, that raises the opportunity to include all sorts of other things, as well as purpose. If the Minister considers it necessary to specify that the purpose is relevant, why does he not tell us which other issues are relevant? Why not spell them out? He chooses to spell out "purpose"—why have the catch-all of "in particular", which allows the Bill to introduce anything else? Does the Minister have anything else in mind?

Mr. Bercow: Rare are the occasions upon which I diverge in my opinions on these matters from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). But does he agree that the inclusion of "purpose" is not in itself objectionable; it is the fact that the Government have so far failed—it is a risible failure—to specify the difference between good reasons and bad, and to distinguish between circumstances that could be anticipated by a resident and those that could not?

Mr. Wilshire: I am saddened that my hon. Friend does not go with the flow of my argument. I would be inclined to share his point of view unless I were given a good reason for the word's inclusion. The whole thing is very


curious and difficult. The Government are asking me to support in legislation the concept that, even if people are present somewhere, it could be said that they are not. Alternatively, we are being asked to accept legislation that provides that, even if people are absent, if they can give a good enough explanation, they can be said to be present. That is the most extraordinary concept to introduce into legislation.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described the amendment as probing, I am slightly disappointed; the amendment should be for real. The gobbledegook to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred applies to this matter. Why can we not simply stick to the facts? If we accepted amendment No. 46, we should be left with the facts; that should be sufficient for British legislation.

Mr. Gray: I do not want to do the Minister's job for him. I am sure that he will deal with this point shortly. However, one might imagine circumstances in which a person lives at a particular address for the specific purpose of registering to vote. There could be widespread corruption; for example, people might move to a key marginal seat for two or three months—three months in this case—to change the voting outcome there. It would be right for the registration officer to take account of people's purpose in being in an area when considering their application for registration. It is harder to imagine why people should specifically want to be absent and why the registration officer should take account of that.

Mr. Wilshire: That is a valid point. If the House supports my hon. Friend's view, it is incumbent on the Government to state which purposes they would accept as good. My hon. Friend gives an example of a practice that, I hope, is not acceptable; it would be a bad purpose. To state only that purposes can be taken into account does not meet the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. If we accept my hon. Friend's argument, the Government will need to introduce further amendments in the other place.
Amendment No. 5 would come into play if amendment No. 46 were to fail. I am a politician who likes to think well of my opponents, so I have great hope in the Government. I am sure that the reasonableness of the intricate arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past few minutes will have persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause, and that we will not need to invoke amendment No. 5. However, in case we need to do so, we should discuss it.

Mr. Fabricant: I put to my hon. Friend the same question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): does he agree that the insertion of the word "verifiable" is tautology? The word used in the clause is "fact". Do not all facts have to be verifiable, by definition?

Mr. Wilshire: I was coming to that point as gently as I could. I suspect that the discussion is coming off the rails, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has difficulties with some of my arguments and I have some difficulties with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. Amendment No. 5—to insert the word "verifiable"—will

be essential if amendment No. 46 does not succeed. That is because our society is based on the rule of law—that is how our system operates. I am not a lawyer, but I understand the rule of law to be the ability to prove an asserted fact. If that is so, there needs to be verifiable purpose. I could not go along with the concept that, in a matter that is as serious as the representation of the people, all one has to do is explain something and one's word will be accepted.

Mr. Fabricant: If my hon. Friend is correct, and he uses that argument to support the insertion of the word "verifiable", would it not be necessary to use the word "verifiable" every time the word "fact" or any other condition is mentioned in a Bill? Clearly, that is not so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. There are a further 13 groups of amendments, which do not include the word "verifiable", to be debated tonight, but if he tables amendments on a future occasion, I should be happy to debate whether that was verifiable.
Amendment No. 57 deals with the difficult issue of those without a permanent address. I should be grateful if, before we vote on the matter, the Minister would tell us whether, when we are talking about whether a person has a permanent address, we are talking about whether they have a permanent address in the United Kingdom or a permanent address anywhere. If a person has a permanent address outside the country but enters the country and says, "I have no permanent address here", the Bill does not make it clear whether the qualification of no permanent address would apply.
Another concern that I have about the issues addressed by amendment No. 57 is the fact that I see in a Bill the words "for example". If there is a lawyer in the House at the moment, perhaps that lawyer—or the Minister—will explain whether a colloquial throwaway comment such as "for example" has any place in legislation and could be taken before a court for judicial review, because I rather think that "for example" should come as a footnote. In my 13 years in the House, I have never come across legislation with footnotes. I have seen many a Select Committee report with a "for example" tucked at the bottom, but never in legislation have I seen such a device.

Mr. Maclean: The words "for example" have been used in legislation—that is, much legislation includes lists of types of things. However, perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to explain whether the sui generis rule applies in this case and, by quoting these examples, whether other categories of the same generic family would also be included or excluded. That is the important point.

Mr. Wilshire: That was a fascinating intervention. I should be grateful to hear the answer.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend may not have noticed that the Minister appeared to be nodding assent to the suggestion that the sui generis rule applies.

Mr. George Howarth: No, I nodded off.

Mr. Wilshire: My admiration for the Minister knows no bounds if he actually understood the detail of those


interventions well enough, as a non-lawyer, to explain to me what we have been discussing for the last few moments, because I could not get my mind around it.
This is all about the question, when is permanence permanence and when is non-permanence non-permanence? I do not find that difficult. What we are seeking to do, if I may say "for example", is to draw a distinction between a person who lives on a park bench for months on end and a person who is chucked out for a night by his wife and has to spend the night on a park bench. That is an example of what we are trying to do.
However, it occurs to me that a problem arises from trying to draw such distinctions, because if someone says, "I live on a park bench", that is a non-residence, unless the person is resident somewhere else. Perhaps we need to consider what happens if the other place is also a non-residence. If someone sleeps on this park bench or that park bench, does having two park benches mean that one of them is the alternative place of residence, and therefore the provision does not apply?
The Minister may think that I am being foolish, but I am trying to save the taxpayer money because, if we do not clarify the matter now, judicial review looms on what is permanent and what is not. If we clarify the matter now, we shall save the taxpayer the enormous legal fees involved in letting the courts sort it out later.

Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend a better example from a real case, not just what may be regarded as a facetious or spurious case involving people on park benches. When the Newbury protesters were taken to court by the police and the Transport Department, the courts ruled that the holes in the ground, or tree-house, in which the protesters were living amounted to a place of residence, and they were bailed to return to their residence—the piece of land that they were demonstrating on. That demonstration is irrelevant to my hon. Friend's argument, but the point is that a residence can be a tree-house or a hole in the ground, as ruled by the courts in Newbury.

Mr. Wilshire: That reinforces my feeling that we must clarify the matter before we give the Bill a Third Reading.
I move on to amendment No. 6. If I understand it, the Bill addresses the issue of how long a person can be away from somewhere without its mattering. The Bill says six months, but the amendment would make it three. That suggests to me that we spent an entirely futile two hours discussing whether in Northern Ireland somebody should be resident for three months before going on to the register. Even though we had that discussion and accepted that provision, we are now saying that it does not matter. I hope that the Minister will tell us which period applies. Is it the one that we discussed earlier or the one that we are discussing now? I see nowhere in the clause the words, "Notwithstanding the references to residence in Northern Ireland". Does the clause refer to the residency test in Northern Ireland? If it does, it should say so. If it does not, why did we have the earlier debate?
9 pm
Another issue is short-term unemployment. As was said earlier, the word "temporary" should be defined. As a non-lawyer, I am amazed that the drafters of the legislation could use what I consider to be such a sloppy

word. If I were unemployed for three years and then got a job, I could say that it was only a temporary period in my life.
I know what the Government were trying to do. They were trying to catch the sense of "short term". That would have been a better term than "temporary", but both are sloppy.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the intellectual paucity of the Government's position demonstrated by the conflict in their treatment of Northern Ireland on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom on the other? A week is a long time when it suits the Government in the context of Northern Ireland, but six months is a short time in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom because that fits in with their predestined purpose. In a nutshell, are not the Government guilty of what the late Winston Churchill would have called "terminological inexactitude"?

Mr. Wilshire: Despite occasional appearances to the contrary, I am a kind and generous man at heart. Unlike my hon. Friend, I prefer to believe that that is just sloppiness, not devious Labour politics of the worst kind. I hope that my generosity to the Minister will be repaid by his telling us that he now realises that it would have made much more sense to specify a period of time rather than to throw out a general term such as "temporary". That would have set my hon. Friend's mind at rest and he would not have had to think the worst about the Labour party's motives.
I could be persuaded that three months was not the period that the Minister had in mind. However, for the purposes of the debate and a vote, let us stick with three months. If he wants us to agree to two or four months, I should also be entirely happy about that.

Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether the clause could have been better phrased by using the words in the Bill's explanatory notes. If I may read a brief note, they say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an intervention, which must be brief. Will the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) resume his speech?

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise one more issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield may then catch your eye so that he can develop his point.
As well as wondering why the Bill is so sloppily drafted, I am mystified why the concept of unemployment gets dragged into a factual matter, such as whether one qualifies to be on the register. That returns me to the first point that I raised. Surely to goodness, we are dealing with where a person resides, not with whether he has a job. I am wholly puzzled by the fact that the Bill considers what a person does with his time. That is not what the Bill is about; it is about where he lives.
I notice that the Minister has been making careful notes, so I look forward to hearing his answers to my many questions.

Mr. George Howarth: I shall try my best to deal with the points that have been raised, although I suspect that some were made to fill up time rather than to shed enlightenment.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not it have been out of order if there had been a filibuster and would you not have called the House to order if there had been?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might equally be accused of taking up the time of the House. The Minister was only surmising; it is the Chair who decides.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows that I deliberately did not use the word "filibustering".
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised a number of points with which I shall try to deal, but there was an element of metaphysical discourse in his speech, and I am not entirely clear what specific points he was making. It is not entirely clear whether he himself knew exactly what points he was making, but I shall try to respond to those that I could identify.
Before I do so, I shall decline the offer that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago when he asked me to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Having watched the hon. Gentleman for some weeks, I have concluded that his mind is far too fevered for me to put it at rest.
There was some discussion about verifiability between the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Member for Lichfield is waiting for a flash of inspiration or enlightenment from me. I have to tell him that verifiability is a word that we all understand, but I suggest that when he has the opportunity he should read the work of Karl Popper, if he has not done so already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is better read than he sometimes appears to be. Karl Popper adds an even more interesting concept to the discussion of verifiability in that he believes that falsifiability is a far better tool. I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman has time, he reads Karl Popper for enlightenment, or revisits his work if he has read it already.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman and that is all.

Mr. Bercow: We know your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we respect them, but it is of the utmost importance to understand to what the Minister is referring, because it is relevant to his response to the debate. Is the work to which he is referring to be found in "The Open Society and its Enemies" or in "Conjectures and Refutations"?

Mr. Howarth: It is some years since I have read either of those publications, and I was an undergraduate at the time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the general philosophy that underlies Popper's approach is that any theory is a good theory only if it is open to falsification. That is relevant to the dialogue between the hon. Member

for Lichfield and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it would certainly be remiss of me to advise them to discuss that during this debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Having sat through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, I assume that the working party did not explore that area. Certainly members from our party did not report that they rose to such philosophical heights.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I intend to demonstrate in a moment, the working party stuck to practicalities and matters of interest to people who want to vote, because that is what the Bill is all about.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) requested information on the position of those in military service and merchant seafarers. Even though he has since decamped, I shall clarify the matter for the record. Military personnel register by means of a service declaration. Merchant seamen register under section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is not affected by the Bill. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman avidly reads the record of the debate tomorrow, he will understand the situation.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne embarked on a somewhat convoluted dialogue about the use in legislation of the expression "for example." I am sure that he has already read it, but to make matters clear I draw his attention to a good example of the use of that expression in the Bill. It appears in clause 3(2), which reads:
Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.
For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all circumstances be taken to be at that time—

(a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or
(b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."

The hon. Gentleman has to concede that the use of the expression "for example" is, in that context, appropriate and enlightening.

Mr. Wilshire: I am afraid that I do not accept that. I was complaining about the use in the Bill of the words "for example." The fact that the Minister can find another example of their use in the Bill does not undermine my argument. My point is that they should not appear anywhere in the Bill, but I would have been out of order had I addressed clauses that we were not debating.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman objects in principle to the use of the words "for example." I was merely demonstrating, by means of yet another example, how it is possible to use that phrase to provide amplification and illustration of a provision.
I recognise that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendments are anxious to ensure that the electoral registration process is not susceptible to false claims and manipulation by those who are sufficiently unscrupulous to attempt them. I respect those views and share that concern, but I do not believe that the amendments would help to achieve that aim.
Even after listening to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) —always a great joy—I am somewhat puzzled by amendments


Nos. 46 and 57. It appears that they would provide that residence should be determined solely by a person's presence or otherwise at the relevant address on the day in question. If that were so, a possible interpretation would be that a person who happened to be staying at a friend's house on the day of the annual canvass would register at the friend's address, rather than his own. I do not believe that the confusion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke exists.
Amendment No. 5 is designed to tighten up the definition of "residence", by introducing the concept of "the verifiable fact". Having already referred to that and to falsifiability, I do not intend to dwell on the subject. However, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the verifiable fact of someone's presence at, or absence from, a particular address on a particular date. How would that work? How is someone who lives alone to prove that he was at home on the date in question? If a false claim is made, there are established procedures for objecting to the inclusion of a specific name in the register. Those procedures are used when people believe it appropriate and necessary to use them. In my view, they provide a more appropriate and effective safeguard than the arrangements proposed in the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are designed to tighten the provisions relating to those who are temporarily absent from home in connection with their employment or business. Under new section 5(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as substituted by clause 3 of the Bill, a person who is so absent can continue to be treated as a resident at his home address, provided he intends to return within six months of leaving home; and new section 5(4) provides that periods of temporary unemployment may be disregarded in that connection. Use of the word "temporary" is accepted: the electoral administrators who were consulted and who participated in the framing of the proposals believe that that is a suitable definition, and I am content that it should remain on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Brady: In my view, it is acceptable for "temporary" to remain in the Bill, but the Minister should give some indication of what the Government have in mind as the definition of "temporary". They must have a conception of what temporary unemployment means for these purposes.

Mr. Howarth: I have already referred—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening—to people who are temporarily away from their home for the purposes of business. On six months of leaving home, they can be considered for registration. That is not an unreasonable period in terms of being temporarily away from home. It is not necessarily a period of unemployment.

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Having done so, I must make some progress.

Mr. Brady: We are dealing with an important point that has an impact on other areas of employment law. My concern is the reference in clause 3(4) to "temporary period of unemployment", and the suggestion that that can

be disregarded. I accept what the Minister says about temporary absence from home on business, but to say that a temporary period of unemployment can be disregarded, when that period could mean anything from three days to three years, is not acceptable. The Government must give an indication of their thinking on the matter.

Mr. Howarth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that his concern is unnecessary. I do not think that it is necessary for me to state a specific period after which temporary unemployment becomes long-term unemployment. I think that the Department for Education and Employment probably has a definition of when temporary employment becomes full-time employment. Perhaps we can reflect on that subsequently. It is not necessary for us to get into a convoluted argument about that.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he always provides the House with great entertainment. This will be the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Fabricant: Why is the time clearly defined in the explanatory notes and not in the Bill?

Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, explanatory notes explain what is in a Bill. That is why we provide explanatory notes.
I intend to move on. I understand why Opposition members might want to delay me, but I think I have been more than generous in giving way. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to do so again.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has commented on the use of language. He has been honest enough to say on more than one occasion that he is not entirely convinced of the need for the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said, the Bill was conceived as a result of co-operation between the three major parties in the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not included in that process. He has his own view on these matters, and the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench may sometimes consider it to be somewhat wayward. However, I do not question the fact that he has the right to take that approach.
Throughout the process of co-operation, we had the benefit of advice from and the thoughts of electoral administrators. They believe that the arrangements set out in the Bill are useful.
Amendment No. 6 would reduce the maximum period of absence from employment from six months to three. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would substitute a maximum period of three months' unemployment for "temporary" unemployment.
I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The provisions in clause 3 make it simpler for people to register, and clarify the circumstances in which they do so without opening the door to abuse. Given all the advice that we have painstakingly taken, we think that the provisions strike the right balance. I hope that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) jointly will feel it appropriate to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to hear him explain why the amendments may not be


necessary or may be misguided. Casual observers may have regarded the debate of the past hour as tedious or boring. I am sure that the Minister was not one of those. He was courteous, as usual, in paying attention to the important points that have been made, and he is always meticulous in responding properly to debate.
It would clearly be nonsense for me to force a vote on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not wish to press his amendments to a Division because of the generous response from the Minister, which we welcome. As I wish to speak at length on the main business tonight—

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is peculiar for the Minister to tell the House that because a measure has been agreed by all parties, it must be beyond reproach? The House will recall that the Child Support Agency had the support of all parties, and I do not think that any of us are particularly proud of that.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. The issues on which the great and the good agree are often the ones about which we should worry. Some Ministers think that if a measure is bounced through in five minutes on a Friday, that is good. I know that the Under-Secretary does not take that view and is always meticulous and courteous. In order that we can crack on and deal with the main group of amendments relating to pilot schemes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
'(5A) Where the declarant falls into the category of person mentioned in subsection 2(c) above, the declaration of local connection must state that the declarant has spent a substantial part of his time (whether during the day or at night) in the parliamentary constituency (or, if the declaration is made for the purpose of local government elections only under the provisions of subsection (6) below, the local government electoral area) during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
'(10) When an address given in a declaration of local connection is owned or occupied by a person, persons, business or organisation, permission must be obtained from such person, persons, business or organisation for that address to be used in the declaration.'.
No. 31, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
'(10) When a declaration of local connection is received by the registration officer, he shall make enquiries in order to satisfy himself that the declarant falls within the categories of person listed in subsection (2) above, and no declarant shall be entered on the register until the registration officer is so satisfied.'.

No. 27, in schedule 1, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
'(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the registration officer to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection made under section 7B of this Act.'.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at such an early stage. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 deal with those seeking to declare a local connection because they are homeless. That is a small group of people, consisting mainly of rough sleepers. I stress to the Minister that we are looking for flexibility and do not want to be dogmatic. We shall put forward common-sense suggestions, which we hope that he will adopt.
As it stands, the Bill is pretty thin in respect of requirements to prove that the elector or would-be elector is who he or she claims to be. The Bill is also not sufficiently prescriptive to bar would-be travelling voters from making tactical decisions about where they will register for voting purposes.
Once the election is called or is about to be called, tactical seats might be earmarked, and registration could take place with the aim of achieving a certain result. The amendments do not aim to be a barrier to legitimate registration, but they aim to be a barrier to protest tactical registration, which I have previously described as the Swampy aspect of the Bill. We must be aware that that could be a problem.
There are sufficient loopholes in the Bill to lead to an increase in fraudulent registration. The amendments will not cut out the fraud entirely, but they will give electoral registration officers powers to satisfy themselves that the declaration is genuine. Amendment No. 30 stipulates that the person making the declaration of local connection has lived in the area for a substantial part of the time during the three-month period. That is not an unsurpassable obstacle to people stating to the electoral registration officer that they have a local connection, have lived in the area and are not just passing through. They must state that they have such a local connection. I do not believe that the rough sleepers whom I pass on my way up Victoria street in the evening would have difficulty in making a local declaration. Many of them are familiar faces, who have local connections for much longer than three months, more is the pity. They would experience no problem with the amendment.
The amendment would make the same provision for England and Wales as clause 6 makes for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has by-elections in mind. Many by-elections are held within three months of their declaration. To use his Swampy analogy, does he fear that homeless people or others may move into an area where there is a by-election to try to change its usual result?

Mr. Evans: The whole Bill, not only the provisions for by-elections, worries me because it provides for the ability to make that sort of protest at general elections and by-elections. General elections are important and people will be able to use the measure to try to affect the result in a seat that has been earmarked as marginal. Seats tend to be more marginal in general elections than they are in by-elections. Local declarations could be made under the


Bill with the aim of unseating a specific person—for example, a Minister who made an unpopular decision. If the measure is not amended, such a Minister could be at risk.
Voters often use by-elections to make a statement about how the Government are faring. I know that, because I have been the victim of two by-elections. If people agree with most of the Government's actions, they will vote for them in a general election. However, in a by-election, people who disagree strongly with only one policy have the luxury of voting against the Government without bringing them down. An amendment that we tabled earlier dealt specifically with by-elections; amendment No. 30 would affect the whole measure by trying to remove loopholes.
Amendment No. 30 would do nothing more for England and Wales than proposed new section 7B(5) of the 1983 Act, for which clause 6 provides, does for Northern Ireland. That provision states that people who register a declaration of local connection in Northern Ireland must declare that they have lived there for three months. That is sensible, and we want only to extend the provision to all relevant parts of the United Kingdom.
The argument that we discriminate against homeless people as against those who have houses will be prominent in hon. Members' minds because it was mentioned when we tabled an amendment about registration for by-elections. The amendment does not aim to discriminate, but we discern a difference in the means of registering. It would be incredibly expensive to buy a house to influence a vote. I do not believe that anyone would be prepared to do that.
The provision for local declaration makes it much easier to register in order to affect a vote. The only expense incurred is that of getting to a specific place. It is argued that it is easier for people to rent a property to influence a vote. It is easier than buying a house, but finding a rentable property involves expense, commitment and difficulty. Local declarations do not involve such difficulties. People can simply go the local town hall, approach the electoral registration officer and state that they have a local declaration. That requires no commitment or proof of having lived in a place. Under the Bill, someone could get off a local bus at Brighton, take a whiff of the sea air and, all of a sudden, become a local.
9.30 pm
Such a person could register—that would be down to the town hall—so I hope that the Minister is prepared to look carefully at amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Amendment No. 31 would place the onus on the electoral registration officer, who would have to be proactive in ensuring that people who make local declarations do so truthfully. In previous debates on the Bill, it has been said that the ERO and his or her staff would be aware that there was a particular problem and could perhaps take action if a number of people who did not live in the area went there to make fraudulent local declarations. We want to place on the ERO the obligation to verify declarations made by people who say that they have been in a certain place for at least three months and so rightfully have a local, rather than a passing, connection.
The Minister may object, saying that the amendment would place a burden on EROS. We already know that they are strapped for cash, and it may add a

disproportionate cost, as I understand that no extra cash will be made available, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people. I asked the chief executive of the local authority in the Ribble Valley area how many homeless people would use the Bill and register with a local declaration. He said none, and I agree.
The same will be true for a lot of rural areas as key urban areas attract the homeless. Property is costly these days and illness is a problem for a lot of homeless people, who are attracted to major cities such as London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Bristol. I do not believe that EROs are inundated to the extent that they would be unable to send a member of staff to make sure that a person who makes a local declaration lives locally.

Mr. Fabricant: Again, I am listening to my hon. Friend's arguments with considerable interest. He will know that Shelter is saying that the number of homeless people is sadly increasing. What assessment has he made of the number of inquiries that might have to be made before an election by an ERO to establish whether someone is resident in a certain area?

Mr. Evans: There may be problems if a number of people are sleeping rough in a given area and an election is called. Once that happens, there is nothing to prevent people from registering a local declaration. We might find that a number of people in certain areas try to register at the town hall, although that would depend on where they are concentrated. I have referred to Victoria street time and again, because that is the area that I know. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) also walks along Victoria street and he, too, will know how many people are sleeping rough there. There will be problems if people wait until the last moment to register their declaration of local connection, particularly as the ERO and his staff will be extremely busy. I hope that local authorities will ensure that they have staff available. Those staff could perhaps come off certain other duties, but not electoral registration, as that would be vital in the run-up to a local election or a general election, should the Home Secretary decide to extend the measure throughout the country. EROs should be able to take some staff off other duties, such as car parking, in order to verify that the person who has declared a local connection has done so correctly.
In places such as Westminster, to which I referred earlier, as many as 100 people may be sleeping rough—perhaps even more. That number would put pressure on the authority. I do not believe that there would be any such pressure on my local authority, and I suspect that my hon. Friend would not encounter too many problems in Lichfield either. The main problem would arise as a result of the Swampy factor.
A number of people may tactically move around the country in order to pick on one large urban constituency. We know that groups of people who live in different parts of the country are now able easily to communicate very quickly on the internet. People who have the same interest and belong to chat groups communicate freely and constantly. Such communication has been used in preparation for demonstrations in London, and we have seen the problems that the police have faced as a result.
Disparate groups of people could easily use the internet. I am referring not to homeless people but to those who will fraudulently claim that they are homeless in order to


pick on one or two constituencies in which to register. The ERO and his personnel will have problems checking each application.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend touches on something that is bothering me considerably: the question of multiple voting. As there will not be a national register, does he believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that a homeless person does not make a declaration of residence in more than one area?

Mr. Evans: Clearly not. There are sufficient loopholes that not only allow people to do so but, in certain circumstances, may encourage it.
I return to the argument that, if somebody is prepared to dig a hole and stay down it for several days or climb a tree and stay up it for several days as a form of protest, making a local declaration of connection in several local authority areas will be a piece of cake. We must therefore be cautious.
I hope that, if very many people make a declaration once an election is called to try to unseat one Member of Parliament, we shall be able to give the ERO sufficient power to verify whether such claims are legitimate. If proof is given, there should be no problem. The problem will arise when the ERO and his staff find that people are obviously not living in the area and have no local connection. I ask the Minister to take due regard of the abuse that could result from the way in which the clause is drafted.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to be short in my comments on this occasion—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I will time the right hon. Gentleman. —

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be delighted to give way, although he would only be prolonging my remarks. I should hope that he would not want to provoke me at this stage in our proceedings. I want to allow as many people as possible to contribute to this part of our debate.
This is the weakest and most vulnerable part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has ably outlined his worries, which I share. The concept of the declaration of local connection is wide open to abuse and it is incumbent on us to minimise that abuse, or eliminate it if we can.
We have just heard the nightmare possibility of people making multiple registrations in different constituencies under the banner of the extremely loose process of declaration of local connection. Amendments Nos. 9 and 27 are designed to reduce the weaknesses and close the loopholes. Amendment No. 9 would require permission to be obtained from the owner or occupier of the address given, be it an individual or a business, the better to verify the use of that address.
The Bill merely requires the person registering to give
the address in the United Kingdom where he would be residing
or, in the case of a homeless person, the address that he "is nearest to". That is open to multiple abuse and we must deal with it properly.

Mr. Robert Syms: Is there not a slight danger that a political party could go around collecting proxies

from 10, 15 or 20 homeless people in a ward and use its political address as the registered address for a postal proxy vote, and thereby skew an election?

Mr. Forth: Yes. Regrettably, there are many such possibilities within the procedure. Amendment No. 9 would not deal with that problem, but amendment No. 27 could or would, because it would lay on the electoral registration officer a duty to verify the local connection. Should the provisions ever reach the statute book, EROS, with their great experience, would want to concentrate on this area, to reassure us that the horrors that we are envisaging will not occur.
The Minister may be able to reassure us in some other way that I cannot yet imagine. I hope that he can. I hope that he will either accept the amendments or give us a guarantee that something of the kind will be introduced, perhaps in another place. I hope that he will do us the courtesy of acknowledging those apparent weaknesses in the Bill, and that he will correct them.
I do not want the briefness of my remarks to detract from the seriousness with which I view the matter, but I want to give others a chance to contribute. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Jackie Ballard: We will not support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. I do not doubt the genuine concern of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the possible fraudulent exercise of the right to register and to vote, but I wonder whether he has been as concerned in the past about possible fraud by people who have more than one residence and could equally do the things that he is concerned that the homeless might do.
I suspect that someone who is literally roofless would not be as able to take concerted action to register in constituencies that may be vulnerable as someone who owns about five residences. In the past, the homeless have been discriminated against and have not been able to exercise the right to vote. It would be very wrong for us to add more discrimination in very welcome legislation that gives them that right for the first time. The difficulty is going to be persuading people who literally have not got a roof that they want to take part in the democratic process at all.

Mr. Evans: I agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. We want the franchise to be extended to homeless people. They have been discriminated against once and we do not want them to be doubly so. Our problem is that, for the first time, legislation is making it easier for people to claim a local connection at the town hall. We want to ensure that safeguards are put in place so that the system is not abused by others—not by the genuine homeless, but by other people who want to make protests.

Jackie Ballard: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, in putting that sledgehammer in place, he will be discriminating against the very people to whom he wanted to give a right.
As I said, the difficulty will be to persuade people who are roofless that they want to reconnect with the democratic process. That will be a real challenge for all of us and, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will oppose it.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the provision that will enable the homeless, as well as prisoners on remand and those who live in psychiatric residential centres, to vote. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that provision will mean that the legislation will be open to abuse, which means that democracy itself will be open to abuse.
The Minister said that he is not too concerned if a group of Ulster Unionists moves to north Warwickshire, but we must all be slightly concerned about people who are homeless, or indeed those who are not, registering a local connection in an area when they do not have one. Shelter has said that, sadly, more and more homeless people are living on our streets. One does not have to be homeless to make a declaration of local connection.
As we do not have a national register as such, how will the Minister ensure that people do not make multiple declarations? In Committee, one Labour Member told me that homeless people cannot get to a number of areas to vote. That is patently not so. If one is on the cusp of a number of adjoining constituencies, it is easy to walk into each to vote during a day. What if one is not homeless and is using the internet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) described? That makes it even more probable that there will be major abuses of democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned Newbury, where tree-houses and tunnels were designated as places of residence. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the Swampy syndrome. There is a real probability that we will be inviting abuse if tight clauses are not added to the Bill as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It is pleasant to see that the amendments in the group are not mutually exclusive. They could all be accepted to ensure that there is no abuse.
There is no question but that there is abuse. Earlier in the passage of the Bill I asked the Minister how many abuses occur. He was unable to tell me. Clearly, they have not been detected. If the Bill is not amended to ensure that owners of properties must say that the individual who makes the declaration of local connection lives there, we shall be inviting the sort of abuse that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described.
We have discussed the question of verifying a number of issues, and we had a long debate about the word "verifiable". Amendment No. 9 is an important amendment. Making a person who owns or occupies a property agree that the declaration of local connection is viable and correct will be a small step towards ensuring that abuses do not happen in the future. If these amendments are not adopted, we will be inviting abuse. Surely that is not what the Minister wants.

Mr. Syms: There are two sides to this question. The first is that people have an absolute right to vote, and the second is that there must be transparency and a right to challenge. The current electoral register is published, and people can check it and their right to be on it. Sometimes, people are open to challenge. If, within a year, somebody missing from the register wants to be added, his name is put up in a local council office or public place so that, in effect, people can challenge that right.
The real problem with homeless people is checking that they have a local connection. This is a problem not only for the returning officer, but for political parties. Many of

us in the Chamber could look at several constituencies and say that we have a local connection. In that case, where one votes could be an elective point, rather than a point of residence. That could cause a real problem, and could raise the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
The system could be open to abuse—not by the homeless, but by people taking advantage of their political position to scoop up a number of additional votes in a particularly marginal seat. All political parties try to take advantage of the electoral law as it stands to maximise their political performance in any seat. There are abuses in proxy or postal votes. Occasionally, agents of parties are accused of abuses because they have signed up people who may not know what day it is. There is scope for abuse by those who know what they are doing in taking advantage of those who are homeless and on the streets.
An address is a critical point for most of us. We register our address from the point of view of electoral registration, and if we purchase or do anything we are often asked where we live. Often, people check the electoral register. If one wants to join a video club, for example, people will ask for bills, or for some connection with a particular address to verify where one lives. If one does not have that, there is a problem. Political parties across the spectrum may look at an individual and measure whether the local connection is valid and whether that person should be on the electoral register. My fear is that the electoral registration officer will be put in a position whereby somebody wants to be registered and local political agents and parties will object because it cannot be proved that that person has a local connection.
In my constituency, the only people with a good idea of who lives on the streets are local police officers. The only way in which one could prove a local connection would be to get statements from local police officers who, in certain areas of Poole, know the people who are sleeping rough in those areas. I am not sure that those homeless people would want to go to the police for a statement that they are local residents, because there is sometimes an uneasy relationship between them.
I have concerns about this measure. It is well intentioned, but open to abuse. If we are not careful, unscrupulous people could take advantage of the homeless.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had many lengthy speeches in this and other debates today. Some hon. Members have suggested that there has been some filibustering—heaven forfend—because the Opposition wish to prevent us reaching the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. This is an important amendment, but I should point out that Conservative Front Benchers have not opposed the next business and it would be particularly hypocritical of them to continue to make long-winded speeches. Perhaps they are just naturally given to them; we will see.
Each of the amendments in this group is designed to place obstacles in the way of people wishing to register as electors by means of a declaration of local connection and, in particular, those people who wish to use that route because they are homeless. We will need to work hard to get the homeless to register to vote, let alone fulfil the concerns that have been expressed tonight. The Conservative party was represented on the working party on electoral procedures, but it now appears to be backtracking on what it agreed then.
Amendment No. 30 would, in effect, impose a three-month residency qualification on a homeless person seeking to register as provided in the Bill. That raises the question of why the homeless should be treated differently in that respect from all other electors in Great Britain. Does the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) really think that a rent-a-homeless-vote procession would arrive in a constituency having a by-election and make straight for the town hall to register to vote, having been alerted to the need to do so via the internet to which, as homeless people, they would hardly have ready access? The hon. Gentleman seems to have a name for that idiocy—I can call it nothing else—and he calls it the Swampy factor. It would provoke much comment if such a thing were to happen and would damage any party that sought to organise it. It is unlikely to happen and the hon. Gentleman has presented no evidence for it. If he has some evidence, I would be pleased to see it before he pursues his argument further.
My objection applies also to amendment No. 9, which would require the homeless person seeking to use, for example, the address of the shop in whose doorway he normally spends the night, to get the shopkeeper's permission before doing so. If the shopkeeper refused, that person would be disfranchised. I can see no justification for that. The shopkeeper would not be affected because the fact that the homeless person had registered under such an address would not give him any rights to remain in the doorway. Indeed, it could be argued that the shopkeeper was consenting to the homeless person sleeping in the doorway if he gave consent to registration. The shopkeeper would be placed in a worse position in that case.
Homeless people have enough problems with being homeless and registering to vote without the Conservative party trying to restrict their ability to vote. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) described the prospect of the homeless voting as a nightmare. I suspect that one of the worst nightmares of the homeless would be for him to be in government again. The Conservative party simply does not want the homeless to vote. That is what the Conservatives are frightened of and what the amendments are about. They are seeking to deny electors the right to express a view on their policies.
The Conservatives are frightened of the electorate. They were defeated at the general election and they do not want more people to vote because they, too, would vote against the Conservative party. The amendments would deny homeless people the right to vote. They would undermine the ability of people who should be able to exercise their democratic rights to do so.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Business of the House

10 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
In view of the lack of progress on the Bill tonight, I regret that the first business tomorrow will be the Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time) motion, followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of that Bill. The business for the remainder of that day will be a debate on the Braithwaite report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I greatly regret the business statement by the Leader of the House. The Bill that was before us this evening concerns the representation of the people. It is the Government's answer to falling turnouts at local elections and general elections and the dismal turnout at the European elections of just over 23 per cent. Tonight's announcement is a slap in the face for our democratic system and will do nothing to promote representative democracy.
The Representation of the People Bill has enormous repercussions for the way in which we will vote in this country. It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. There must be quiet in the House, so that everyone can hear what he is saying.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill has enormous repercussions for the way in which we will vote in this country. It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers to alter the hours of the vote, the number of days of the ballot, where ballot boxes will be placed and who is able to vote. It is ironic that that is the Bill that is being treated so badly by the Government.
Guillotining that vital constitutional legislation will damage the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the debate that has been announced for tomorrow. This is a business statement and I hope that all questions to the Leader of the House will be relatively brief.

Mr. Evans: Full debate on and scrutiny of the remaining stages of the Bill is vital. The lack of it will ensure a poorer Bill. We have accused the Government of having no regard for this country's constitution, and nothing proves it more than their actions this evening. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the decision and to allow full debate on the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in so far as I accept that it is an important Bill. That is why the Government have taken it on the Floor of the House and why we have been prepared to be open in


discussion about the handling of it. Indeed, we were asked for a day to deal with the items that were before the House today, and that time was provided.
It is my understanding that the time has been taken to debate the use of such words as "temporary" or the phrase "for example". The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill raises important issues. I am sure that he is as aware as I am that the House can work only with a degree of consent. When it appears that a small handful of hon. Members exploit that consent, the House has to take that into account and to change the ground rules.
On Thursday, I made the business statement and announced the time allocated for the Bill. Not one single Conservative Member—the hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is speaking from a sedentary position, was not even here—raised the issue of the Bill, said that there was any problem, or that the time was in any way inadequate. It is too late to do so now.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Thirteen batches of amendments have been tabled on Report. So far today, we have not even completed the first three because of the activity on the Opposition Benches. The last three groups of amendments on the amendment paper stand in my name. If they had been discussed, there is no reason why the Minister and I could not have dealt with them in 20 minutes or so. In drawing up the timetable motion, I hope that consideration will be given to dealing with serious matters towards the end of the Bill that might otherwise be neglected.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I have great sympathy with him. He has a long track record of activity on and expertise and serious interest in these matters. He will appreciate that it is not easy to reflect what he seeks, but I will certainly bear his remarks in mind.

Mr. Norman Baker: Is it not the case that the business statement has been made as a consequence of the insufferable attempts at filibustering by certain right hon. and hon. Members? Is it not also the case that their motive has been not an interest in the Representation of the People Bill, but a desire to talk out the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill? When the Leader of the House makes her statement tomorrow, can she guarantee a slot for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill so that it receives proper scrutiny by the House and is not subject to further delay?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. It is particularly unfortunate that some of those who have been discussing at great length quite minor issues in the Bill—considering that it contains some serious issues that they could have been discussing—said that their opposition to the original fur farming legislation was because it was a private Member's Bill when it should have been a Government Bill. Now it is a Government Bill, and although I cannot undertake to give the hon. Gentleman full details tomorrow, I can confirm that it will be a Government Act and that it will go on the statute book.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened today has been an absolute disgrace and makes a mockery of Parliament?

Is she further aware that her statement is quite justified, and that there can be no other way of proceeding with this measure?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the point that when a few abuse the freedoms and privileges rightly enjoyed by this House, they bring them into jeopardy.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House tell us what she is afraid of? Why can the House not continue its proper debate on the Bill, making steady progress as it has been doing this evening? Why has the right hon. Lady come here in a fit of pique, wearing her jackboots? Will she acknowledge that her colleagues are not prepared to continue considering the Bill any time after 10 o'clock, a time that seems to have some magic significance for her? Why can we not simply get on with our business and consider the Bill? What objection does the Leader of the House have to continuing consideration of the Bill in the perfectly orderly way in which it has been conducted so far?

Mrs. Beckett: Many of the issues that I understand the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing this evening could have been raised on either of the first two days that the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House. However, he took no part in those debates. I am sorry to disappoint him but I am not afraid of anything except an abuse of the freedoms of the many in this House by the exploitation of a few.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House explain what on earth is the point of inviting Conservative Members to participate in the working party on whose work the Representation of the People Bill was built, when other Conservative Members abuse Parliament on Report?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is extremely difficult. We recognise that hon. Members of all parties play a serious part in the business of the House and address the issues that we are sent here to address. However, from time to time there are those who frivolously exploit their opportunities, but there we go.

Mr. David Maclean: Is not this another intolerant act from an increasingly intolerant Government? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady was not in the Chamber for one minute of today's debates. Had she been here, she would have heard her hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) support points made by the Opposition. Will she tell us what the Report stage is about, if we are not allowed a further four hours—at the present rate of progress—to complete the Bill in an ordered and serious manner? If the right hon. Lady had bothered to be in the Chamber during part of the Report stage, she would not have had to rely on second and third-hand accounts of what she thought was being debated.

Mrs. Beckett: Like other hon. Members, I am able to take advantage of modern communications in the House, so I know what is happening. I should take the right hon. Gentleman's representations more seriously, first, if they were not a characteristic feature of his behaviour and,


secondly, if he had contributed to the proceedings on the Bill during either of the first two full days of debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend consider the representations on the whole process of timetabling that I made to her and the Chief Whip? Does not tonight's ridiculous charade underline the arguments in favour of timetabling all business?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in that—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out and as, I am sure, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen recognise—there are undoubtedly useful issues in the Bill which should be debated. The time made available for debate was not challenged until this evening; that time has been used not to discuss serious issues but to filibuster. That is an abuse of the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has not yet told the House what her intentions are with regard to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.") That Bill raises matters of considerable importance, which touch on the liberty of the subject. I want the Bill to be properly debated, at the proper time, so that I can speak and vote against it. It was never a good idea to put a Bill of such importance on late at night. I hope that when she decides on when we shall debate that Bill, we shall do so early in the day and with sufficient time.

Mrs. Beckett: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have every intention of giving time for that matter to be debated and voted on. I note that this is the first admission from the Opposition that the need to debate the Representation of the People Bill has to do with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made my point.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the hard-pressed fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby what will happen to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill? Is not the lack of seriousness with which the Opposition take such issues an indictment of the Opposition? When can we return to that important business which is vital to my constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. What is more, I suspect that he is probably speaking for some Opposition Members, although for reasons that we all understand, they are showing a certain amount of collegiate loyalty. Although, last Thursday, I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.

Mr. David Wilshire: When the Labour Members who are shouting and bawling—almost none of

them bothered to attend today's debates— [Interruption.] When they read Hansard tomorrow morning, they will discover that, since 5 o'clock, we have held a constructive, good-humoured and well-ordered debate. Will the Leader of the House tell us why she has not bothered to come into the Chamber to see what has been going on? Will she tell the House why she is so terrified of debate, and of scrutiny by Opposition Members?

Mrs. Beckett: I am shaking in my shoes, naturally, as a result of that condemnation. I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, so far as I can see, he too is one of those who did not contribute to debates on any stage of the Bill until today. Of course it is perfectly legitimate for him to do so, but I simply say to him that his concern is perhaps a little late found.

Maria Eagle: As the promoter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in the last Session, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Conservative Members—two of them in particular—who have been filibustering this afternoon have form in that respect. What does she think that the Conservative party has to say about animal welfare to all those groups who oppose cruelty? The vast majority of Members want fur farming banned. Can she assure us that she will bring the Bill back for its Second Reading as soon as possible?

Mrs. Beckett: Again, let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill whose original purpose she promoted reaches the statute book. As she will fully understand, I cannot at this second give her details of when and how that Bill will again be debated, but I can assure her that what has happened in the past has been what many Members across the House regard as an exploitation of the use of private Members' time, and we do not intend to see the same thing happen in Government time.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have not been taking part in these proceedings. Instead, I have been making profitable use of my time in the Library, preparing for the sitting of Standing Committee F tomorrow morning. What makes the right hon. Lady so reluctant to move the 10 o'clock motion, and what is it about Labour Members that they are unable to make use of their time at night when they are not taking part in the proceedings in the Chamber?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender at our debates. I am confident that, in his heart of hearts, he is well aware that to spend time in the House discussing the use of the words "temporary" and "verifiable" may not be the best use of the time that is available to us.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I was referred to earlier. Yes, I participated in some of the earlier debate, but it took me merely six minutes to make two very simple points. It took Conservative Members 60 minutes to make the same points, very badly.

Mrs. Beckett: That is why my hon. Friend is so much more highly paid.

Mr. Roger Gale: My track record on animal welfare is reasonably well known in the House.


I am a passionate supporter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and I have waited patiently here tonight, with a view to coming into the Chamber to support it. However, as one who, wearing another hat, has on occasions had the duty to defend the rights of Back Benchers, I would not wish that Bill to be used to deny Back Benchers on both sides of the House the right to discuss issues on Report. I have yet to hear the right hon. Lady answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): why will she not move the 10 o'clock motion, so that we may complete the discussions on the Representation of the People Bill and move on to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has no more control over his hon. Friends than has anyone else, and there can be no assurance that we would complete the stages of the Representation of the People Bill if we moved the 10 o'clock motion and sat through the following day. He may be prepared to take the risk; I prefer to give him the proper time to debate the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in reasonable hours and at whatever length is required.

Mr. Phil Hope: Is it not clear that the filibuster by the Conservatives is not just an abuse of the democratic procedures of the House but a denial of the democratic wishes of the people of this country to prohibit the outlandish practice of fur farming? Will my right hon. Friend now take it upon herself to introduce timetabling of parliamentary business so that a minority of Conservative extremists cannot obstruct the democratic will of the people?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) knows, I have always been reluctant to contemplate the use of the procedure that I have had to announce tonight. I am a strong believer in, and have always practised, the use of sensible programming so that issues of real importance on Bills may be debated and we do not spend time on issues of no real importance or of minor importance.
I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point that the programming of legislation is likely to lead to sensible and proper discussion.

Mr. Gale: Who is the judge of that?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Who is the judge of that?" Any Conservative Member who thought that inadequate time had been proposed for the Representation of the People Bill had the opportunity to say so at business questions. Not one of them opened their mouth.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Can the right hon. Lady cite a precedent in the public business of the House in which two Second Reading debates were taken in succession on the same day and following the Report stage of a third Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should have more sense. If he had been here longer, he would have known that the previous Government did everything.

Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents would have

been appalled to see what has gone on in the House tonight, especially the attempt to prevent us discussing the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which many of them want to see passed? Will she ensure that the right of Back Benchers to have such discussions is fully protected and not overridden by the juvenile behaviour of certain Conservative Members?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is an important balance to be struck in preserving the rights of Back Benchers on both sides of the House. We are in danger of straying into territory in which the freedoms that are properly, sensibly and rightly available to Members are used to create problems that will ultimately be resolved. Every Government have had to make such decisions from time to time. If we face continual tactics of the kind that we saw in the discussions of the Representation of the People Bill, such matters will have to be considered.

Mr. John Bercow: As an assiduous attender of debates in the Chamber, may I assure the right hon. Lady that Conservative Members simply sought to amend ill-considered, confused and sometimes downright stupid features of the Representation of the People Bill? Her statement, which attempts to prevent us from continuing to do that, is an abrogation of the democratic rights of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady also note that the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Hope), for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) all had one characteristic in common when they pronounced judgment on Conservative Members? None of them was in the Chamber for the debates this afternoon or this evening.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—I notice it continually—that, although Members may not be present in the Chamber, they observe our debates.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On television.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says, "On television" as though there were something shocking about that. Nevertheless, those Members hear our debates. It is not valid to assume that Members who have not been present in the Chamber are not aware of the debates.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an assiduous attender in the Chamber and takes part assiduously in our business. On the whole—I do not wish to do him any harm—he is not among those who are most guilty of sometimes using our procedures in the way to which I have had to draw attention tonight. Although it may not suit Conservative Members to admit it, he will be as well aware as anyone else that it is important to strike a balance. On the one hand, we should preserve the proper freedoms of Members and, on the other, we should deal properly with the business—Government or otherwise—that is before us. If that balance goes adrift, it has somehow to be remedied.

Mr. Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in his


assiduousness in observing the Chamber's proceedings, has clearly failed to recognise that I was here earlier today—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down if I rise to my feet—[Interruption.] He must not try to continue the debate from a sedentary position, otherwise he will get into real trouble. He raises a point for debate, which he will have other opportunities to raise if he wishes. It was not a point of order for the Chair. We have heard quite sufficient on the matter tonight; there will be a debate tomorrow.

Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the questions to the Leader of the House on her statement, a Labour Member used the word "filibuster" to describe contributions that you and other Deputy Speakers have clearly ruled are perfectly proper and in order. Is it in order to use the word "filibuster" in those circumstances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Great emotion normally arises when timetable motions are introduced. The proceedings have been chaired throughout the evening in such a way that we have noticed when an hon. Member has been out of order, and that has been dealt with. For the most part, as we know, proceedings in the House move slowly; at other times, they move amazingly quickly. Generally speaking, everything has been in order this evening.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Jane Kennedy be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Mike Hall be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NHS (Avon)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I ask those right hon. and hon. Members who are not staying for the Adjournment debate to depart quickly and quietly.

Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House tonight the situation in the national health service in the Avon area, which is of grave concern to myself and my constituents. The matter is of particular note at the moment because of winter pressures.
May I say at the outset that I want to place on public record my appreciation and tribute to the NHS staff in the Avon area, who have performed remarkable feats in recent weeks. There can be no doubt that it is their dedication, devotion and hard work, which is well beyond the call of duty, that has enabled the health service in my area to keep going under extraordinary pressures.
The chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust, which serves my constituents, said in a letter to all hon. Members in the Avon area:
Our nurses and physicians are working more than flat out and our surgeons are assisting them.
Clearly, the staff in the NHS deserve our warmest thanks and appreciation, which all too often they do not receive.
It is because of the appreciation of the work that NHS staff are doing that it is particularly important that they are not taken advantage of. My concern is that the NHS is relying too much on the good will and hard work of its staff, and it may even be taking advantage of their good will. In many respects, the NHS is close to breaking point, not only this winter but at other times, and it is only the staff's dedication that prevents things from going seriously wrong.
I want to set out the background to what has been happening in Avon, to look back at events of recent weeks and to consider whether those might have been prevented or dealt with better. I want also to consider the health authority's future and the pressures that it faces. I am grateful to the health authority, to North Bristol NHS trust and to the chairman of my local primary care group for briefing me in advance of this debate.
We have been through a remarkable few weeks. In the two weeks after Christmas, emergency admissions in the Avon area were 14 per cent. above the levels in the preceding autumn, which were themselves relatively high. That is an average over the whole authority. In the North Bristol NHS trust, which serves my constituency, there were
some days when emergency admissions increased by 40 per cent.
Those are extraordinary pressures for the health service to bear.
How did the service cope? As far as we can tell, it coped remarkably well in the circumstances. The briefings from the health authority and the trust suggest that the planning for the general run of winter pressures, coupled with the good will and endeavours of the staff, meant that many of the worst possible outcomes did not materialise.
Having said that, things were extremely difficult—in my view, unacceptably so. To humanise the problem, I quote not the health authority statistics—valid though they are—but the letter dated 12 January from the chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust to Members of Parliament. She writes that the pressure began on 3 January,
when people, suffering from the complications of flu, started to pour in…We have no doubt that the people who are being admitted need to be in hospital—they are very ill.
There is no question that the admissions were not necessary. She says that on 7 January, the pressures were "particularly bad".
In Frenchay Hospital"—
which is in my constituency—
we even had to turn our day surgery units into holding bays for the medical patients we were admitting and cancel all day cases.
By midday that day, out of the 654 beds in the hospital, only one was available. It had to be kept available because, by that point, Frenchay was acting as a receiving centre for neurosurgery, not just for Greater Bristol or for Avon, but for the whole of the south of England and the whole of Wales. Perhaps we should be having debates about the circumstances in which health services everywhere but Avon found themselves, given that our local hospitals were under such pressure, having to serve such a huge area. I am greatly concerned about the time it would have taken for someone from the far south of England or a remote part of Wales to reach Frenchay.
The chairman goes on, making a critical point:
At this point we did something which we never had to do before. We made an arrangement with United Bristol Healthcare Trust and Royal United Hospital NHS Trust.
They agreed that each hospital would, in turn, for a three-hour period, take in all further admissions in the area, except for "blue light" cases or those who turned up at casualty. That gave each hospital six hours to catch its breath and get things under control.
It shows the strain under which the health service was operating that, for six hours, Frenchay and other hospitals were effectively closed. It worries me that the trusts are running so close to capacity. Even though I acknowledge that there was a seasonal peak in demand—I do not want to argue about whether it was an epidemic—it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that such an event would occur. Hospitals had to close because we run the health service so close to capacity. I am worried that we reached the point where, despite the best efforts of staff, there was only one neurosurgical bed in the whole of southern England and Wales, and hospitals were effectively closed for six hours.
At this point, I should like to put in a plug for my local cottage hospital in Thornbury. The chairman of my local primary care group has pointed out that, without Thornbury hospital, there would have been
significant extra pressure on Southmead/Frenchay.
Thornbury has 24 beds, but only one of them was free and there was rapid turnover during the Christmas and new year period. Cottage hospitals have recently come under threat; I urge the Government, when considering their future, to bear in mind the important role that they play, especially at busy times.
Could those events have been foreseen or prevented? Management plans were in place, but was there enough preventive work? Was there a sufficiently energetic

inoculation programme in the autumn? My impression is that there was some effort, but not enough. Will more effort be made next year, or will we run the risk of the same thing happening again? Is the NHS running too close to capacity? My feeling is that the financial pressures being put on the health service mean that it is, with the result that when circumstances such as a severe flu outbreak arise, its facilities are stretched close to breaking point.
We must look forward and ask what will be the legacy of those winter pressures during the coming weeks and months. It is obvious that there will be pressure on waiting lists. The letter from the chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust states:
I know you will appreciate that, with this pressure on our services, we are not able to keep up with the planned reduction of our waiting list. We are now falling back by about 40 operations a day. If and when the emergency demands reduce, we will do our best to catch up…but our staff will be very tired and we must not push them beyond the limits of safety.
Over the Christmas and millennium eve period, many staff put in extra time that they would not normally have put in, and they expected a new year break in return. That has not materialised and it is not clear how the waiting list backlog can be cleared without substantial support from central Government.
The trusts face two substantial pressures, the first of which is the additional costs that they have incurred in dealing with flu and the winter crisis. Will the Government meet these costs or will the money have to be found from the trusts' budgets? The money was not budgeted for, so will that mean cuts in other NHS services?
The chairman's letter from which I have been quoting concludes:
My Board has spelt out clear priorities for the Trust; firstly, to treat emergencies; secondly, to meet the in-patient waiting list targets and thirdly to meet financial targets.
In my view, that is the right sequence—patients first and money second. However, in the modern NHS the trusts are businesses. If the Government do not help them with the additional financial pressure that they face as a result of the winter crisis, how will they cope? How will they reduce waiting lists? How will they improve NHS services and not merely stand still?
The second funding pressure that I fear they will face is from the pay award announced this week. I understand—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the money that has been promised to nurses and others, which is entirely welcome, must be found within existing NHS planned and present budgets. In other words, there is no new money to match the new pay award. If the trusts are finding money to cope with the winter pressures that they did not have in the budget and if next year they have to find money for salaries that was not in the budget, what will be cut? If the Government will not meet these shortfalls, what will the trusts have to cut?
I shall look ahead and set out what might happen if the winter pressures, and the financial pressures that have followed from them, are not dealt with. I received an e-mail from a constituent—to preserve her confidentiality, I shall call her Mrs. A—who e-mailed me within minutes of seeing the news about the lady from the north of England who had cancer treatment repeatedly postponed.


The story has appeared in the media. Mrs. A tells a heart-rending tale of the state of the NHS and of the problems that will not be dealt with if the trusts do not have the necessary money. She states:
We are prompted to write after hearing about the cancer patient…My husband has been fighting cancer for 17 months now and has first hand experience of the desperation waiting lists can cause. He had to wait six weeks for radiotherapy that his consultant really wanted him to have immediately after an intense course of chemotherapy. He has since been told he is terminally ill and we can't help but wonder what difference that waiting time would have. We are disgusted that the national health service has been allowed to be grossly underfunded when, as we have learnt, health is all that matters and that without your health you have nothing. We beg of you to hound government ministers responsible to stop looking at short term voting gains and put the income tax up and the money where it is needed.
The final line of her e-mail reads:
By the way, my husband is … 32 years old and will leave three children fatherless.
I naturally responded promptly to that communication, and I received a further message from Mrs. A, which re-emphasised the pain that she has felt and her distress about the health service. I shall read part of her message to me. She states:
On the day my husband was asked if he wanted to give one last, new treatment a go (or else have six months to live) the nurses on the ward were using up 'favours' between the departments to get him a C.T. scan. They could only wrangle an X-ray!! This obviously is just a split moment in our lives that caused desperation on top of desperation. The nurses, no wonder, probably feel such desperation daily, again because of what boils down to lack of funds. What would a penny on Tax be to everyone and how many lives and families could that keep going?
When Liberal Democrat Members say that more should be spent on the NHS, we are sometimes asked where it should come from. I make no apology for the fact that I have called for extra spending on the NHS. I have called for the trusts to be reimbursed for the costs of the winter pressures, which were unforeseen. I have also called for the Government to meet the costs of the pay rise that were not budgeted for. Above all, when situations arise that affect people such as Mrs. A and her husband, I cannot believe that the NHS is properly funded all year round, let alone during the winter.
The Government have a chance to do more than what the Prime Minister promised, which was to reach an acceptable funding level in five years' time. They could start this April. They could go beyond their published spending plans and not cut the standard rate of income tax by 1p in the pound. That would raise well over £2 billion, which our health service needs now. The Government seem to be saying that it will take years to find the necessary money, yet they are handing over £2 billion to taxpayers who, all the evidence suggests, want that money to be spent on the health service that they and we treasure.
I had the permission of my constituent to read that extract in the House tonight, because she contacted me in desperation about the state of the health service. People who work in the health service have shown yet again this winter their dedication, skill and devotion. Advantage must not be taken of them. When the Government have money to spend on the health service, they should spend

it on the health service, not on tax cuts. I hope that the Minister will go to the Treasury tomorrow and relay that message to the Chancellor in the strongest possible terms.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on his success in securing this debate on winter pressures on the NHS in Avon. I am grateful to him for choosing that subject, because it provides me, as it provided him, with an opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary success of the Avon health community and all its staff in coping with pressures which were undeniably extreme. There were greatly increased demands on health services. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Avon has shown by its planning and dedication that when we attempt to meet unprecedented demands, it can be done. It was done in Avon.
We must pay tribute to the staff, who have shown themselves to be extremely flexible, who were recalled and sacrificed their Christmas holidays and the millennium period. Despite the exceptional demands, those who needed care received it in Avon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
We must acknowledge the contribution of managers and clinicians, as well as that of the nursing staff and ancillary staff, who are often forgotten. They have all played their part in those efforts.
That the NHS in Avon was under intense pressure is undeniable. In December the Avon ambulance service trust dealt with 14 per cent. more emergency responses than in the previous year, and so far this month the number of ambulance activations is 28 per cent. higher than in January last year.
Overall, on average, 254 people were admitted to hospitals per day as emergencies during the period from 27 December to 9 January, compared with 222 emergency admissions per day during the previous period. United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust admitted 726 emergencies between 26 December and 12 January, with the number of medical emergencies!an important point!showing a rise of 36 per cent. over the same period last year.
At the hon. Gentleman's local North Bristol NHS trust, too, the number of emergency admissions rose. He cited the figures. On a number of occasions the extra demand led to isolated problems, with a number of long trolley waits before admittance at United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust.
I acknowledge that the individual cases raised by the hon. Gentleman show that the service was under pressure. I appreciate the distress caused for the patients and families concerned. I in no way underestimate that distress, but it does not show that the NHS in Avon was unable to meet the demands imposed on it by the extended Christmas and millennium holidays or the influenza outbreak.
There is certainly much in the media about the pressure on critical care services—that is, intensive and high-dependency care. Although there was great pressure on those services, all Avon patients who needed intensive care received it locally. That was achieved by the


carefully planned use of theatre recovery areas and by extending high-dependency care on to general wards to enable patients to leave intensive care units.
The increase in capacity to deal with peaks in demand was provided by asking regular staff to work extra hours, as well as by using bank and agency staff. Far from being in crisis locally, the intensive care arrangements in Avon were such that the health community was able to provide assistance to other areas, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. It was able to take a number of patients requiring intensive care, as well as dealing with patients transferred into the area for specialist and tertiary interventions requiring intensive care afterwards.
It is further to the credit of staff, as we should acknowledge, that the NHS in Avon coped with the demand without the additional help of NHS Direct, which is available to over 60 per cent. of the population in England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that NHS Direct will be available in Avon by October this year.
I want to comment on planning, because I do not want us to believe that the system coped by accident: it coped through careful planning, which began with establishing local winter planning groups. They first met in April last year to co-ordinate health and social care services over the winter and the millennium holiday. It is important to acknowledge that, for the first time, we have pulled together health authorities, social services, NHS trusts, primary care groups, out-of-hours and deputising services, police and fire services, the voluntary and private sectors, community health councils and local authority departments. The complicated organisation of Avon health authority, which comprises 10 NHS trusts, 12 primary care groups and four unitary local authorities led to four local plans, based on the four local authority boundaries.
We must acknowledge that Avon health authority represents a tremendous success story. Its plans were assessed by the south-west regional office of the NHS executive and social care regional staff who considered them comprehensive and robust. The millennium executive team visited the local winter planning group in October. It identified some points that required further work, but it generally agreed with the regional office's assessment of the plans
The planning has built on the record extra resources that the Government made available to the NHS. I shall explain that in more detail. Unlike previous years, when money was provided late in the day, in 1999 planning started early, and the resources for contingency arrangements were made available early. In the comprehensive spending review in July 1998, we made additional resources available to the NHS. We made a three-year commitment, which allows for planning. Overall, it was the biggest injection of cash in the history of the NHS.
Avon health authority received £582.5 million, which represents a cash increase of £36.5 million, or 6.69 per cent. Next year, Avon will receive £629.4 million, a cash increase of £40.7 million. At 6.9 per cent., that represents the highest growth in the south-west region.

Mr. Webb: When I spoke to the chair of my primary health group this week, he said that while the Government talk about growth money, it is eaten up by, for example,

salaries or the flu bug, and that services cannot be developed because people are running to stand still. The Minister may talk of "growth money" and "record figures"—after two years of near freeze or sticking to Tory plans—but is it not true to say that, on the ground, the NHS cannot expand?

Ms Stuart: Not quite. The extra money is being provided, but in a targeted manner. Some extra money was for local planning. I shall discuss the implementation of such planning shortly. However, I want to highlight the fact that we are considering not simply extra money but modernising the service, changing some of the practices and the ways in which we use beds and deal with admissions. Avon has been excellent at finding innovative ways of doing that.
Last year's total included £4.92 million from the modernisation fund, specifically targeted at waiting lists. I know that the hon. Gentleman is worried about waiting lists and that he secured an earlier Adjournment debate on the subject. Of the additional £5.58 million that the health authority received, funding was targeted at, for example, staff recruitment and retention—again, that paid off—mental health, cancer waiting times and nurse prescribing.
However, we must not neglect the fabric of the NHS. As part of the largest capital programme in the history of the NHS, it is forecast that the total capital spend in Avon will be more than £38.5 million. That includes £2.6 million from the modernisation fund to improve the accident and emergency departments in all the major acute trusts in Avon. Avon health authority and the local trusts will have allowed for the extra spending needed to cope with the expected additional pressures when planning for winter. Making financial arrangements was part of the winter planning.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the increases awarded to nurses. Again, significant account was taken of them in the extra health allocations, which were announced recently. Although all NHS organisations in the Avon area took steps to increase their capacity to deal with winter pressures, I want to highlight the particular measures taken by the South Gloucestershire planning group, as they will be of the most concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. North Bristol NHS trust staffed and opened an additional 44 beds and had a further 14 on standby. Those measures included opening 18 medical beds in Elgar House at Southmead. At Frenchay hospital, the trust opened an additional ward with 17 beds to serve as an overflow facility as well as a further four medical beds on existing wards and six low-dependency beds at Blackberry Hill hospital. In addition, the trust has opened a further 62 beds this month to cope with the record number of emergency admissions.
The trust has continued its expansion of the "hospital at home" scheme and placed particular emphasis on early intervention. That has increased the scheme's capacity to take referrals from general practitioners and hospitals, reducing the need for—or cutting down the length of—hospital admissions. The health authority also made a separate non-recurring allocation of £100,000 to North Bristol NHS trust to help with winter pressures. That money has been used to provide occupational therapy, physiotherapy and home-loan equipment and to meet the extra costs of ambulance transport to assist with prompt discharge from hospitals.
The local primary care group was closely involved in planning for the winter. It put in place a number of initiatives including extra surgeries without appointments, nurse-run dressing clinics, newsletter information to patients, extra contraception clinics and influenza and pneumococcal vaccination clinics. It also planned for emergency provisions in the case of widespread utilities and systems failures. Thankfully, the last measure was not needed, but although the system failures predicted for 2000 have not happened, those plans were extremely valuable and that should be recognised.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about elective surgery. It is part of normal NHS planning on dealing with waiting lists to take account of the expected close-down over the holiday period and reductions in activity caused by winter pressures. We always expected less elective activity to take place during January. North Bristol NHS trust, to deal with some of the extra pressures, entered an agreement with St. Mary's hospital—a local charitable organisation—to carry out routine surgery there. The doctors carrying out that surgery will be NHS staff working in NHS time. The trust is consulting patients about whether they wish to be treated at St. Mary's. Those arrangements will mean

treatment for more than 200 patients, and it must be emphasised that the use of private facilities will not lead to any charges to any patient.

Mr. Webb: I raised the case of my constituent, Mrs. A, who would want the Minister to respond to her tragic circumstances. I hope that she will be able to do so.

Ms Stuart: When a particular case is raised it is only right that I mount a proper investigation and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman contacted me after the debate. I shall investigate the circumstances. This is a serious case and he deserves a serious answer.
It is important to say that, although the success of such planning has been shown in Avon, the future of the NHS is extra funding, which the Government are providing. By modernising our services, we can build on the structures that we have and build capacity. I could go to the Treasury tomorrow to ask for extra money, but that would produce not one extra nurse or one extra doctor. The capacity building that we are undertaking with capital investment and training programmes, combined with an examination of the way in which we deliver services, means that we shall improve the way that we cope with winter pressures. Avon coped with unprecedented demands, and coped well. I want to acknowledge that tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.